US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1726

On March 13 2015 12:40 Danglars wrote:

Hold up on the hopping from conclusion to conclusion. One can accuse modern academia/intellectuals of pressing their political agendas first, and pursue scientific research second (bending and twisting to suit the agenda). The scientific method, on the other hand, is all about honest inquiry--so sliding that in is just dishonest arguing. I remember one of the more recent topics was the manipulation of 20th century historical climate data (just google if you want to read the allegations). That's all about starting with conclusions and fitting the data to support, not starting with hypotheses and testing them with the statistics.

If you find quotes for those Republicans talking about gut instinct over science, go put a face to them in an article. Both sides use caricatures of their opposition, and yours are particularly more witty or penetrating.

On March 13 2015 14:23 Mohdoo wrote:


It's not dishonest arguing. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with human-created climate change. Disagreeing with that is disagreeing with science. If there were bias being applied, others would drool at the prospect of publishing contrary papers to gain citation count and notoriety. Proving popular opinion also helps when trying to publish in prestigious papers like nature. The idea that the scientific community is biased in favor of climate change is silly for many reasons, but the most pronounced is what a poor understanding of academia and the ruthlessly cannibalistic nature it expresses. Many scientists would have no problem going bankrupt if it meant fame and glory for proving a widely held view wrong. It just isn't wrong. If it was, we'd be past that by now. The statistics and atmospheric models have become quite good and have really clear conclusions.

On March 13 2015 15:29 Sandvich wrote:


Do you mean the adjustment of temperatures from the 20th century to have a uniform measuring time? Climate data is taken in the morning now, whereas in years past it was recorded in the afternoon, causing earlier readings to appear warmer than their modern day counterparts. Unless your vague manipulation allegations were referring to something else?

The ability of the U.S. and Canadian military to defend North America could be jeopardized by stepped up Russian military activity, according to the commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

Adm. William Gortney told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that Russia is continuing to work on its program to deploy "long-range conventionally armed cruise missiles," that can be launched from its bomber aircraft, submarines and warships. This is giving the Kremlin "deterrent" options "short of the nuclear threshold," Gortney said.

On March 13 2015 17:40 Slaughter wrote:
Its not like these figures are coming from polls of scientists. Reviewing the literature shows that something like 97% of surveyed scientific papers published that took a position on climate change supported the idea that humans are contributing to it. Now that doesn't tell you anything about the degree of the contribution, but it does tell you that scientific research has supported this notion.

On March 14 2015 00:41 hannahbelle wrote:

Or more accurately, just tells you about publishing rates.

Federal health officials were advised in 2009 that a formula used to pay private Medicare plans triggered widespread billing errors and overcharges that have since wasted billions of tax dollars, newly released government records show.

Privately run Medicare Advantage plans offer an alternative to standard Medicare, which pays doctors for each service they render. Under Medicare Advantage, the federal government pays the private health plans a set monthly fee for each patient based on a formula known as a risk score, which is supposed to measure the state of their health. Sicker patients merit higher rates than those in good health.

The program is a good fit for many seniors. Some 16 million people have signed up—about a third of people eligible for Medicare—and more are expected to follow. Supporters argue that Medicare Advantage improves care while costing members less out of pocket than standard Medicare. The Medicare Advantage industry is lobbying hard to block budget cuts sought by the Obama administration.

Medicare Advantage plans are "clearly an important force to be reckoned with when it comes to making public policy," said Dr. Robert Berenson, a former government health official, who is now at The Urban Institute.

But overspending tied to rising risk scores has cost taxpayers billions of dollars in recent years, as the Center for Public Integrity reported in a series of articles published last year. Earlier this week, the Government Accountability Office estimated "improper payments" to Medicare Advantage plans at more than $12 billion in 2014.

Concerns that some health plans overstate how sick their patients are date back years, according to records recently released to the Center for Public Integrity under the Freedom of Information Act.

The documents include an unpublished study commissioned by the agency that runs Medicare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and dated Sept. 29, 2009; the study tracked growth in risk scores starting in 2004, the year after Congress created the billing tool.

The study found that risk scores for Medicare Advantage enrollees grew twice as fast between 2004 and 2008 as they would have had the same person remained in standard Medicare. The study said it was "extremely unlikely" that people who enrolled in the plans actually got sicker and noted that coding inflation "results in inappropriate payment levels."

The lead author was Richard Kronick, then a researcher at the University of California, San Diego. Kronick now heads the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a research arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. He had no comment. Other authors listed included three CMS employees.

A CMS spokesman said on Thursday that the agency sought to publish the findings on a government run research site, but was told it needed to be "substantially shortened" to be considered. "Given competing workload demands we were not able to revise and resubmit the article," the official said in a statement.

The study cited diabetes as an example of the billing problem.

On March 14 2015 00:48 Jormundr wrote:

No, a collection of data measuring the length of time for each part of the research and publishing processes and an accompanying analysis of the differences or similarities between them would tell you about publishing rates. But hey, maybe I'm giving you too much credit.

MIAMI (AP) — Talk show host Rodner Figueroa was fired from Univision after saying that Michelle Obama looks like someone from the cast of "Planet of the Apes."

Figueroa, who's known for his biting fashion commentary, made his remarks during a live segment of the show "El Gordo y la Flaca" in which the hosts were commenting on a viral video that shows a makeup artist transforming himself into different celebrities, including Michelle Obama.

"Well, watch out, you know that Michelle Obama looks like she's from the cast of 'Planet of the Apes,' the movie," Figueroa, 42, said with a giggle.

When hostess Lili Estefan countered with "What are you saying?" and host Raul de Molina said Obama was very attractive, Figueroa defended his remark, saying "but it is true."

In a statement, Univision called Figueroa's comments "completely reprehensible" and said they "in no way reflect the values or opinions of Univision."

Figueroa, who in 2014 won a Daytime Emmy Award, did not respond to requests for comment Thursday. He worked for Univision for 17 years and had been on "El Gordo y la Flaca" since 2000.

On March 14 2015 00:45 always_winter wrote:
Very good points being raised here.

The GMD missile-defense system is largely still in development, but currently only boasts a 53% kill ratio (9 of 17 missiles intercepted). This is a stationary ground-based weapons system (i.e., missiles pop out of silos on air force bases, typically in California or Alaska) and is heavily-scrutinized for going operational prior to adequate testing. There's not a lot of literature surrounding it, however, so it's hard to get a good read of the efficacy of this program as it remains at least partially concealed.

The United States still possesses immense anti-missile capability, however, primarily in the form of the Aegis Combat System attached to an incredible armada of missile guided destroyers currently deployed around the world. The Patriot missile systems are an additional mobile deterrent and work in conjunction with other ABM systems. Together these systems create a quite formidable missile defense, however it is not 100% accurate and the world has already seen what a single atomic bomb made in the 1940's can do to an entire city.

This raises the concept of MAD, mutually-assured destruction, which posits any two nations with second-strike capability (i.e., the ability to absorb a strategic nuclear attack and still possess enough nuclear warheads to respond in kind), will not engage in atomic warfare with one another for fear of self-survival.

The real kicker, however, and what actually makes the succession of these comments quite interesting, is that the entire premise of MAD is based upon Cold War-era capabilities, which did not include the existence of ABM systems. The premise, of course, remains, and still applies widely to a 21st-century context, but as the ABM systems develop more and become more effective, a state actor may consider a nuclear attack upon a nation with second-strike capability with the assurance that the retaliatory strike would be nullified by advanced weapons systems.

On March 14 2015 01:43 Acrofales wrote:


Well, I am still assuming that the US has moved past the idea of first-strike using nukes and will be the country retaliating after a nuclear attack by Russia (the scenario we were discussing). While Russia does have ABM, their system is nowhere near as advanced as Star Wars, and even that system is only partially functional. So from a policy point of view, ABM can be pretty much disregarded.

And even Putin is not a sufficently power crazy madman that he would accept being carpet bombed by nukes as an acceptable collateral for having wiped out the imperial Americans.