Again, I ask, how does this affect my request for evidence? You are smoke-screening to distract from the fact that no one has provided any. In other words, put up or shut up.
For the record, I heard the quote from National Lampoon's Van WIlder - I wasn't even aware someone else had originally stated it (although it doesn't surprise me). I could have attributed it, but I decided I wanted to include the second quote, and I only have 120 characters. I also don't limit myself to only quoting people who I agree with one hundred percent. It isn't inconsistency to expose myself to ideas that conflict with my current opinions. I can appreciate, even contemplate other viewpoints without having to agree with them. What is most telling is that you consider such capability to matter to an argument - that is called ad hominem
Again, I repeat, [[citation needed]]. Because I make up shit too, like the interference of the government cause the economic collapse, or little green men, or those damn commies, or....
Let me get this straight: because you conjecture, with no evidence to back up your claims, that a free market doesn't fix the problems with "our business and financial communities", that we have currently, in a non-free market system, that somehow all of libertarianism doesn't work? Even though it might fix the government, which is giving "our business and financial communities" the power to abuse individuals (and, not to mention, directly abusing the public, as noted in the summary)? It is telling that your argument is so weak that you have to follow it up with an ad hominem attack on libertarians, and then issue a second unsupported claim about that system of government. In short, [[citation needed]].
You know, you can continue repeating bullshit, but that doesn't make it true. I'll ask you again: show me proof the candidate knew about the ad beforehand; otherwise, you have pre-judged the individual guilty with zero proof. Meanwhile, take your ad hominem attacks and shove 'em up your ass, fuckwad.
Gee, you mean people may actually need to do their own research into the person who going to treating them? I mean, how did humans ever survive without the government to tell them things?
Did you even read the article? He said specifically he doesn't approve of mudslinging. Let me quote it for you...
Martin said he has no plans to make an issue out of Lachowicz’s alter-ego and explained that the parties frequently operate without consulting candidates in local Maine races.
“From the first time I was elected, I didn't like the mudslinging,” said Martin, who owns Nitram Excavation Services. “Somebody’s personal life is their personal life. What you do in society and in the community is what matters. I've seen three or four attack ads against me from the Democratic Party. We have no control over that, which is unfortunate.”
Notice the "we" in that last sentence - he is referring to Lachowicz. Are you equally demanding an apology from Lachowicz for the mudslinging attacks by the Democratic party against Martin? The fact is, both of the parties are despicable and will stop at nothing to get more of their party in office. What needs to happen is for more people to vote for third parties - that would give these politicians better options that they could ally themselves with. Local politicians are just as trapped as voters, and by the time the local politicians have an opportunity to serve nationally, they are so entrenched in the parties that they've been corrupted from serving in the "belly of the beasts". People need to stop listening to the biased news media, stop pre-judging individuals based on nothing more than an accusation, and maybe, just maybe, we can begin to turn this country for the better. But based on the responses on Slashdot recently, I hold no hope that this will happen this election (and little for it to happen in my lifetime).
I came to that conclusion because there is zero proof to the contrary. Provide me with any evidence, anything you can find that shows this individual knew anything about the ad prior to the moment he was questioned about it. You essentially have pre-judged the individual with no evidence, and expect that individual to accept responsibility for something he may not have done. You are no better than a crooked cop demanding an apprehended individual to sign a confession.
Then I'll pose the exact same question I did earlier, of which no one has actually attempted to answer: what, specifically, would you define as accepting responsibility? Given that this is a free society, I don't see how we can hold a candidate responsible for the words another person makes, even in support of that candidate, and the best response I would expect would be exactly what he did: rebut the ad and move on.
I've already said the nutrient selection is relevant to the interpretation of the results, but not the study itself. The study itself is accurate, and I refuse to engage in idle speculation as to the motives of the selection (another flaw common in news reporting today). As far as the misspelling, there doesn't seem to be anything to actually support that claim outside of a Huffington Post article, which claimed the misspelling affected just one nutrient. The Newcastle researcher seems to have removed any evidence of such a statement.
No, actually, it is not. As others have pointed out, having a narrowly-defined study is a good thing. The question you are ignoring, which I previously mentioned, is what is the significance of that selection of nutrients? Why did the Stanford researcher choose those? Why did the Newcastle researcher choose her set? If organic produce has statistically significant more nutrients that we need very little (or none) of, then it is irrelevant. Everything else is just hype by news organizations and PR departments that don't understanding the scope of the study.
You are ignoring the fact that he said the individual he met does not match the description being pushed forward. He actively went against the message being pushed by the party. He also clearly stated he is not working closely with the party - he had to research the subject when it was brought to his attention (imagine that, a candidate that thinks and studies before responding!). The party doesn't pass approval on everything to the local candidates - when they do, there is the "I am so-and-so, and I approve this message." I didn't see anything like that here. The fact is, you are assuming and applying a generalization to this specific candidate.
This rebuttal is exactly why news reporting is so poor. This author has no scientific training, and his specific claims of the study being flawed betray that lack. To make his point he has to redefine the definition of nutritious from "more nutrients" to "lacking pesticides". This is why scientists are needed to peer review results - not some John or Jane Doe off the streets, or a certain New York Times journalist in an opinion piece.
The study is very clear - for a certain set of nutrients, organic produce does not have more than regularly grown produce. At no point does the author of this rebuttal ever attempt to show otherwise. The fact that the study didn't test everything doesn't make it flawed. The interpretation of the results - that organic produce is no more nutritious than regular produce - may be flawed. If the study contained the most important nutrients, then the interpretation is correct. Personally I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Stanford scientist over the journalist until some serious peer review comes in. Frankly, there's nothing to see here but some journalist with an overblown sense of his own abilities.
Did you perhaps miss the part where he took responsibility? He explicitly stated the attack was nothing but mudslinging and that the individual seemed like a nice person when he met her. What more do you want? Be specific, I want to know exactly what else you think he should have done. In case you have forgotten, we do live in a largely free society, and he can't force them to take the website down or apologize.
You are actually claiming Reagan's and Bush's violations of civil liberties hold a candle to Obama's, who has executed American citizens without due process? I can't imagine anything worse a President could attempt to do.
And this little analogy you've written out applies how? Neither party is being straight with voters. Obama talks about how important NASA is, but he's already tried to cut their funding. Romney is now taking cheap shots at Obama for it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's actually correct in his criticisms. Frankly, his rhetoric is largely identical to Obama's rhetoric about the wars - lots of bluster, but no real action.
You call that fair? How about mentioning the fact that Obama tried to convince us that taking the buck fifty from NASA was a good way to help reduce our national debt? Or that Obama has had nearly four years to do something with NASA? Or do all the facts get in the way of beating the dead horse that is George Bush?
The truth is, neither of the two main political parties in America give a damn about NASA or the space program. If this is truly important to any readers, find a more worthy political party, and give them your vote.
No, it is actually proportional, with implications that the author might be willing to consider something slightly progressive. Really, these definitions are not that hard.
Given that I don't watch/listen/follow any media organization, your assertion that they convinced me of anything is false. Like the Occupy movement, I made my judgments based on looking into the actual organizations themselves.
The original "TEA party" (a name originally given to them by the media, I might add - the original movement had no name) cared only about one thing - forcing the legislature to actually be fiscally responsible (ironically, they actually had something in common with the Occupy movement - both of them disliked corporate bailouts). What currently exists as the TEA party is not the same entity. I have looked into the local groups that promote themselves as part of the TEA party, and they are just ultra-right wing political movements.
Sure, as with any organization, the current TEA party has some variance in it (so do the Republican and Democratic parties), but what exists now is not what was originally started (again, the original organizers have nothing to do with the "grassroots movement" that exists under the name TEA party today). The Republican party didn't "take over" the TEA party by seizing control from a select group of leaders. They did it much more subtly - they convinced private citizens who support the Republican party to take part in the movement and push for broader political action. This tactic works regardless of how decentralized the movement is.
Should any group exists that push for a single specific political action that I agree with (like forcing the legislature to be fiscally responsible), I'll be happy to take part in it - but the TEA party is not such a group.
Well, as my girlfriend was in New York City at the time, sent me pictures of them, and talked about what she saw them doing, I'd say I had a pretty direct view of what was happening, and they were hippies, with unrealistic to non-existent demands, and declined when it became obvious they didn't have any goals. On top of that, the best depiction of the Occupy movement I saw was by the Daily Show, led by two fairly left-leaning individuals, and backed up that assertion.
A much better description of the effects the mainstream media has is the Tea Party movement. Originally, it was a group of people who were upset about one issue - the massive amount of money spent by both the Bush and the Obama administrations (yes, originally they didn't like the Republicans any more than the Democrats). Of course, immediately the left-leaning media derided them as right-wing nutjobs, while Fox News and the Republican party immediately tried to claim the movement as a "grass-roots" call for Republican ideals because of the lip-service the Republican party has been giving to fiscal responsibility (neither of which were true). Due to media intervention, more Republicans showed up at the rallies and pushed for Republican political figures to be invited. Now, the Tea Party really has devolved into nothing more than an ultra-right wing movement, and the original organizers now have nothing more to do with it. All this happened in something like a month, which shows the terrifying efficiency of the entire media system in the US at swaying public opinion.
I am seriously disappointed by the vast majority of comments here. Slashdot generally presents some semblance of caring about facts and citations supporting any claims, but as soon as the ACA comes up, it seems like everyone abandons reason and logic. I want to provide a viewpoint applying those two methods to this topic. Hopefully others interested in the same will chime in.
First, to all the foreigners chiming in claiming to have this same law in their countries, I want to reply, no, you don't, and it doesn't matter if you did. No two laws anywhere are exactly the same, so what you have is not going to be the same as what we have. If you are going to make that claim, I am going to demand you provide a citation for the one or more laws that have the exact same text as ours, along with supporting evidence that it is interpreted legally in the same way. Now, you may fairly claim the intent of the law is the same as the intent of the law in your country, which shifts the discussion to how well the law actually implements the intent, and I'll address that in a moment.
Next, I'll give foreigners the benefit of the doubt and assume the law is identical to one in their country that "works". A problem ignored by foreigners is that basically every other law this country has is different from their laws. The United States is governed by a Constitution that is different than the underlying laws of every other country. So even if it works in your system, we can't just wholesale "borrow" your law and magically expect it to work here. We need a law that is carefully crafted to respect the restrictions in the Constitution (or else pass amendments to the Constitution to provide an exemption in this case) as well as maintain our economy.
For a third point, I'm sick of the partisan whining from the Democrats and Republicans. No, the Republicans are not uncaring bastards who don't care if people die. Neither are the Democrats trying to set up a nanny state where they have complete control of other people's lives. Both parties set up a false dichotomy in which there are only two options when there are actually many more. Republicans value personal freedom as the highest value, where Democrats value livelihood. Both of these are valid viewpoints, and having a different opinion does not turn another person into a monster. If you can't talk about the other party without vilifying them, chances are you are a brainwashed servant of your political party.
Fourth, how well does the law implement the intent? This is the point that disturbs me most, and why I am largely against the law. The law ballooned from one hundred pages to over two thousand in an extremely short time period (something like thirty to forty-five days, if I recall correctly). Basically none of the legislature read the law before passing it. No one bothered to look into how well it met the intent. No one tried to run simulations to estimate how well it would work. No one knows what it will cost (we hear one trillion dollars, but that is just as much a guess as the eight hundred billion "needed" to bail out the banks). Even worse, no one knows what sort of side effects there are. Essentially, the government is gambling that this massive law is going to magically make things better, but given the lack of data about it, there is a fifty percent chance it is going to negatively impact the country, as well as a fifty percent change it will positively impact that country - and then only by drastically simplifying things to the level of American "news" organizations. A law this massive can't even be judged by such simplistic terms. Realistically, some things will work great - I am a big fan of the clause guaranteeing health insurance in spite of pre-existing conditions. Other things will be big problems - the time to see a doctor is likely to increase, something foreigners conveniently forget to mention (or just flat don't realize) in comparison to the current American standard (and what's more, the rich of other nations know it, which is why they traveled to
If you want to know how old the earth is, you don't go out and ask a dozen people off the street to "get as many angles on an issue as you can", you try to find a reliable source. In this case, that means you find a scientist, and if you want a precise answer, you find a geologist. That's because reality isn't a compromise; it either happened or it didn't. You don't go, "some people say the earth is 3 billion years old, some people say it's 6,000 years old, let's meet somewhere in between and call it an even million."
You have a slight problem, you are assuming "all you can do is try to get as many angles on an issue as you can in order to grasp the reality of the situation" equates to "meet somewhere in between". The point of getting as many viewpoints as possible is to provide yourself with the knowledge necessary to begin researching the situation yourself. If group A claims to have a study supporting their viewpoint, but so do groups B, C, D, you can use the currently flawed news organizations to track down those studies and check for things such as peer review and the like to validate the studies. If you ignore organizations B and D, you may never even hear about those studies. Even good news organizations will be wrong from time to time, and learning how to validate even those you trust is a good skill to develop.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I ask, how does this affect my request for evidence? You are smoke-screening to distract from the fact that no one has provided any. In other words, put up or shut up.
For the record, I heard the quote from National Lampoon's Van WIlder - I wasn't even aware someone else had originally stated it (although it doesn't surprise me). I could have attributed it, but I decided I wanted to include the second quote, and I only have 120 characters. I also don't limit myself to only quoting people who I agree with one hundred percent. It isn't inconsistency to expose myself to ideas that conflict with my current opinions. I can appreciate, even contemplate other viewpoints without having to agree with them. What is most telling is that you consider such capability to matter to an argument - that is called ad hominem
And if somehow there could be a free market, it would cost most people their lives.
[[citation needed]]. You guys are full of words with nothing to back up your statements.
According to your link, he also described himself as an anarchist. That affects my request for, you know, evidence, exactly how?
Again, I repeat, [[citation needed]]. Because I make up shit too, like the interference of the government cause the economic collapse, or little green men, or those damn commies, or....
Let me get this straight: because you conjecture, with no evidence to back up your claims, that a free market doesn't fix the problems with "our business and financial communities", that we have currently, in a non-free market system, that somehow all of libertarianism doesn't work? Even though it might fix the government, which is giving "our business and financial communities" the power to abuse individuals (and, not to mention, directly abusing the public, as noted in the summary)? It is telling that your argument is so weak that you have to follow it up with an ad hominem attack on libertarians, and then issue a second unsupported claim about that system of government. In short, [[citation needed]].
You know, you can continue repeating bullshit, but that doesn't make it true. I'll ask you again: show me proof the candidate knew about the ad beforehand; otherwise, you have pre-judged the individual guilty with zero proof. Meanwhile, take your ad hominem attacks and shove 'em up your ass, fuckwad.
Failure of compromise is a good thing. Do you really want this idiot Representative's opinions influencing bills?
Gee, you mean people may actually need to do their own research into the person who going to treating them? I mean, how did humans ever survive without the government to tell them things?
Did you even read the article? He said specifically he doesn't approve of mudslinging. Let me quote it for you...
Martin said he has no plans to make an issue out of Lachowicz’s alter-ego and explained that the parties frequently operate without consulting candidates in local Maine races.
“From the first time I was elected, I didn't like the mudslinging,” said Martin, who owns Nitram Excavation Services. “Somebody’s personal life is their personal life. What you do in society and in the community is what matters. I've seen three or four attack ads against me from the Democratic Party. We have no control over that, which is unfortunate.”
Notice the "we" in that last sentence - he is referring to Lachowicz. Are you equally demanding an apology from Lachowicz for the mudslinging attacks by the Democratic party against Martin? The fact is, both of the parties are despicable and will stop at nothing to get more of their party in office. What needs to happen is for more people to vote for third parties - that would give these politicians better options that they could ally themselves with. Local politicians are just as trapped as voters, and by the time the local politicians have an opportunity to serve nationally, they are so entrenched in the parties that they've been corrupted from serving in the "belly of the beasts". People need to stop listening to the biased news media, stop pre-judging individuals based on nothing more than an accusation, and maybe, just maybe, we can begin to turn this country for the better. But based on the responses on Slashdot recently, I hold no hope that this will happen this election (and little for it to happen in my lifetime).
I came to that conclusion because there is zero proof to the contrary. Provide me with any evidence, anything you can find that shows this individual knew anything about the ad prior to the moment he was questioned about it. You essentially have pre-judged the individual with no evidence, and expect that individual to accept responsibility for something he may not have done. You are no better than a crooked cop demanding an apprehended individual to sign a confession.
Then I'll pose the exact same question I did earlier, of which no one has actually attempted to answer: what, specifically, would you define as accepting responsibility? Given that this is a free society, I don't see how we can hold a candidate responsible for the words another person makes, even in support of that candidate, and the best response I would expect would be exactly what he did: rebut the ad and move on.
I've already said the nutrient selection is relevant to the interpretation of the results, but not the study itself. The study itself is accurate, and I refuse to engage in idle speculation as to the motives of the selection (another flaw common in news reporting today). As far as the misspelling, there doesn't seem to be anything to actually support that claim outside of a Huffington Post article, which claimed the misspelling affected just one nutrient. The Newcastle researcher seems to have removed any evidence of such a statement.
No, actually, it is not. As others have pointed out, having a narrowly-defined study is a good thing. The question you are ignoring, which I previously mentioned, is what is the significance of that selection of nutrients? Why did the Stanford researcher choose those? Why did the Newcastle researcher choose her set? If organic produce has statistically significant more nutrients that we need very little (or none) of, then it is irrelevant. Everything else is just hype by news organizations and PR departments that don't understanding the scope of the study.
You are ignoring the fact that he said the individual he met does not match the description being pushed forward. He actively went against the message being pushed by the party. He also clearly stated he is not working closely with the party - he had to research the subject when it was brought to his attention (imagine that, a candidate that thinks and studies before responding!). The party doesn't pass approval on everything to the local candidates - when they do, there is the "I am so-and-so, and I approve this message." I didn't see anything like that here. The fact is, you are assuming and applying a generalization to this specific candidate.
This rebuttal is exactly why news reporting is so poor. This author has no scientific training, and his specific claims of the study being flawed betray that lack. To make his point he has to redefine the definition of nutritious from "more nutrients" to "lacking pesticides". This is why scientists are needed to peer review results - not some John or Jane Doe off the streets, or a certain New York Times journalist in an opinion piece.
The study is very clear - for a certain set of nutrients, organic produce does not have more than regularly grown produce. At no point does the author of this rebuttal ever attempt to show otherwise. The fact that the study didn't test everything doesn't make it flawed. The interpretation of the results - that organic produce is no more nutritious than regular produce - may be flawed. If the study contained the most important nutrients, then the interpretation is correct. Personally I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Stanford scientist over the journalist until some serious peer review comes in. Frankly, there's nothing to see here but some journalist with an overblown sense of his own abilities.
Did you perhaps miss the part where he took responsibility? He explicitly stated the attack was nothing but mudslinging and that the individual seemed like a nice person when he met her. What more do you want? Be specific, I want to know exactly what else you think he should have done. In case you have forgotten, we do live in a largely free society, and he can't force them to take the website down or apologize.
You are actually claiming Reagan's and Bush's violations of civil liberties hold a candle to Obama's, who has executed American citizens without due process? I can't imagine anything worse a President could attempt to do.
And this little analogy you've written out applies how? Neither party is being straight with voters. Obama talks about how important NASA is, but he's already tried to cut their funding. Romney is now taking cheap shots at Obama for it, but that doesn't change the fact that he's actually correct in his criticisms. Frankly, his rhetoric is largely identical to Obama's rhetoric about the wars - lots of bluster, but no real action.
You call that fair? How about mentioning the fact that Obama tried to convince us that taking the buck fifty from NASA was a good way to help reduce our national debt? Or that Obama has had nearly four years to do something with NASA? Or do all the facts get in the way of beating the dead horse that is George Bush?
The truth is, neither of the two main political parties in America give a damn about NASA or the space program. If this is truly important to any readers, find a more worthy political party, and give them your vote.
No, it is actually proportional, with implications that the author might be willing to consider something slightly progressive. Really, these definitions are not that hard.
Ahh, so you're a Regressive. Glad to have that cleared up.
Ah, so you poison the well (and falsely, as well). Happy to have helped cleared that up.
Given that I don't watch/listen/follow any media organization, your assertion that they convinced me of anything is false. Like the Occupy movement, I made my judgments based on looking into the actual organizations themselves.
The original "TEA party" (a name originally given to them by the media, I might add - the original movement had no name) cared only about one thing - forcing the legislature to actually be fiscally responsible (ironically, they actually had something in common with the Occupy movement - both of them disliked corporate bailouts). What currently exists as the TEA party is not the same entity. I have looked into the local groups that promote themselves as part of the TEA party, and they are just ultra-right wing political movements.
Sure, as with any organization, the current TEA party has some variance in it (so do the Republican and Democratic parties), but what exists now is not what was originally started (again, the original organizers have nothing to do with the "grassroots movement" that exists under the name TEA party today). The Republican party didn't "take over" the TEA party by seizing control from a select group of leaders. They did it much more subtly - they convinced private citizens who support the Republican party to take part in the movement and push for broader political action. This tactic works regardless of how decentralized the movement is.
Should any group exists that push for a single specific political action that I agree with (like forcing the legislature to be fiscally responsible), I'll be happy to take part in it - but the TEA party is not such a group.
Well, as my girlfriend was in New York City at the time, sent me pictures of them, and talked about what she saw them doing, I'd say I had a pretty direct view of what was happening, and they were hippies, with unrealistic to non-existent demands, and declined when it became obvious they didn't have any goals. On top of that, the best depiction of the Occupy movement I saw was by the Daily Show, led by two fairly left-leaning individuals, and backed up that assertion.
A much better description of the effects the mainstream media has is the Tea Party movement. Originally, it was a group of people who were upset about one issue - the massive amount of money spent by both the Bush and the Obama administrations (yes, originally they didn't like the Republicans any more than the Democrats). Of course, immediately the left-leaning media derided them as right-wing nutjobs, while Fox News and the Republican party immediately tried to claim the movement as a "grass-roots" call for Republican ideals because of the lip-service the Republican party has been giving to fiscal responsibility (neither of which were true). Due to media intervention, more Republicans showed up at the rallies and pushed for Republican political figures to be invited. Now, the Tea Party really has devolved into nothing more than an ultra-right wing movement, and the original organizers now have nothing more to do with it. All this happened in something like a month, which shows the terrifying efficiency of the entire media system in the US at swaying public opinion.
I am seriously disappointed by the vast majority of comments here. Slashdot generally presents some semblance of caring about facts and citations supporting any claims, but as soon as the ACA comes up, it seems like everyone abandons reason and logic. I want to provide a viewpoint applying those two methods to this topic. Hopefully others interested in the same will chime in.
First, to all the foreigners chiming in claiming to have this same law in their countries, I want to reply, no, you don't, and it doesn't matter if you did. No two laws anywhere are exactly the same, so what you have is not going to be the same as what we have. If you are going to make that claim, I am going to demand you provide a citation for the one or more laws that have the exact same text as ours, along with supporting evidence that it is interpreted legally in the same way. Now, you may fairly claim the intent of the law is the same as the intent of the law in your country, which shifts the discussion to how well the law actually implements the intent, and I'll address that in a moment.
Next, I'll give foreigners the benefit of the doubt and assume the law is identical to one in their country that "works". A problem ignored by foreigners is that basically every other law this country has is different from their laws. The United States is governed by a Constitution that is different than the underlying laws of every other country. So even if it works in your system, we can't just wholesale "borrow" your law and magically expect it to work here. We need a law that is carefully crafted to respect the restrictions in the Constitution (or else pass amendments to the Constitution to provide an exemption in this case) as well as maintain our economy.
For a third point, I'm sick of the partisan whining from the Democrats and Republicans. No, the Republicans are not uncaring bastards who don't care if people die. Neither are the Democrats trying to set up a nanny state where they have complete control of other people's lives. Both parties set up a false dichotomy in which there are only two options when there are actually many more. Republicans value personal freedom as the highest value, where Democrats value livelihood. Both of these are valid viewpoints, and having a different opinion does not turn another person into a monster. If you can't talk about the other party without vilifying them, chances are you are a brainwashed servant of your political party.
Fourth, how well does the law implement the intent? This is the point that disturbs me most, and why I am largely against the law. The law ballooned from one hundred pages to over two thousand in an extremely short time period (something like thirty to forty-five days, if I recall correctly). Basically none of the legislature read the law before passing it. No one bothered to look into how well it met the intent. No one tried to run simulations to estimate how well it would work. No one knows what it will cost (we hear one trillion dollars, but that is just as much a guess as the eight hundred billion "needed" to bail out the banks). Even worse, no one knows what sort of side effects there are. Essentially, the government is gambling that this massive law is going to magically make things better, but given the lack of data about it, there is a fifty percent chance it is going to negatively impact the country, as well as a fifty percent change it will positively impact that country - and then only by drastically simplifying things to the level of American "news" organizations. A law this massive can't even be judged by such simplistic terms. Realistically, some things will work great - I am a big fan of the clause guaranteeing health insurance in spite of pre-existing conditions. Other things will be big problems - the time to see a doctor is likely to increase, something foreigners conveniently forget to mention (or just flat don't realize) in comparison to the current American standard (and what's more, the rich of other nations know it, which is why they traveled to
If you want to know how old the earth is, you don't go out and ask a dozen people off the street to "get as many angles on an issue as you can", you try to find a reliable source. In this case, that means you find a scientist, and if you want a precise answer, you find a geologist. That's because reality isn't a compromise; it either happened or it didn't. You don't go, "some people say the earth is 3 billion years old, some people say it's 6,000 years old, let's meet somewhere in between and call it an even million."
You have a slight problem, you are assuming "all you can do is try to get as many angles on an issue as you can in order to grasp the reality of the situation" equates to "meet somewhere in between". The point of getting as many viewpoints as possible is to provide yourself with the knowledge necessary to begin researching the situation yourself. If group A claims to have a study supporting their viewpoint, but so do groups B, C, D, you can use the currently flawed news organizations to track down those studies and check for things such as peer review and the like to validate the studies. If you ignore organizations B and D, you may never even hear about those studies. Even good news organizations will be wrong from time to time, and learning how to validate even those you trust is a good skill to develop.