|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 18 2017 06:48 Necro)Phagist( wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 06:45 Gorsameth wrote:On April 18 2017 06:32 Necro)Phagist( wrote:On April 18 2017 06:23 Plansix wrote:On April 18 2017 06:16 Necro)Phagist( wrote:
As scary as 'war' with NK sounds I feel like it is growing more and more necessary. Trump not exactly the man I want at the head of it either but something does need to be done. NK military equipment may seem like a joke but they are edging closer to be able to do some serious damage. While they could never win an all out war, the more we wait now the higher potential causalities.
They can't do anything really to the states, but they can do some serious damage to Seoul and maybe even Japan if left unchecked much longer. Trump while I hate him, has been dealt a pretty shitty hand to have to deal with this situation early on in his presidency. If we go attack NK, you can expect our relationship with that entire region to change overnight. I doubt any aspect of the US economy would escape the diplomatic and possibly literally fallout from that exchange. And then there is the whole South Korea capital would be leveled issue. That is what I mean by tough hand dealt. Seoul would be in serious danger and most likely hit hard. But Kim Jong Un is not exactly stable and is more aggressively testing weapons that can reach further. So do you let them build up more and just keep putting off the problems in hope of a future peaceful resolution which is extremely unlikely, or do you bite the bullet and rip the band aid off quickly so to speak. Try best to evacuate Seoul or even just a precision strike on Pyongyang to take out leadership? I'm clearly no expert but to me just putting it off over and over clearly hasn't worked. The longer we wait the more toys they have to play with. It's a shitty situation all around. Yeah you know, just rip that band-aid off. Having a city of 10 million levelled with all the casualties that entails is totally acceptable to resolve a situation that has been stable for over 70 years... North Korea is not going to be the aggressor, not now, not 100 years from now. They are very much aware that any actual hostile action will see their country removed from the map in short order. Dictatorships never last. At some point an opening will present itself to deal with NK without killing a few million people. No need to break a stalemate because your impatient. Yea just keep waiting. Been waiting for decades and the only thing that has happened is they now have nuclear capabilities. So while the ripping the band aid off metaphor wasn't the classiest or best way to describe it I agree there, you can't deny that they are getting closer to have long range nuclear capabilities. So what is worse? Waiting to long and having say Tokyo and Seoul both nuked? No options here are good, it's all shit but doing something might be better. Notice how I said might be, I don't know and I'm not claiming to, nor am I claiming that we should just go in and say fuck it take the losses. I'm merely pointing out that while we wait, NK gets better weapons that can do more damage and that waiting hasn't exactly been the most productive thing thus far.
getting the political will to spend the several trillion dollars required would be difficult. especailly hard is getting South Korea to agree to any such plan. and it's hard to succeed there without south korea's help.
|
Again imagine if the USA was a modern country.
More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients."
Source
|
On April 18 2017 07:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again imagine if the USA was a modern country. Show nested quote +More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients." Source
I'd bet damn close to 100% of the people in prison have also suffered from SPD, suggesting ending the war on drugs and increasing psychological healthcare are likely better than anything else that's come out of any politicians mouth to address addiction, crime, or suicide.
Certainly a hell of a lot better than folks like Manchin (D) and Session's (R) renewed war on drugs strategy.
|
On April 18 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 07:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again imagine if the USA was a modern country. More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients." Source I'd bet damn close to 100% of the people in prison have also suffered from SPD, suggesting ending the war on drugs and increasing psychological healthcare are likely better than anything else that's come out of any politicians mouth to address addiction, crime, or suicide. Certainly a hell of a lot better than folks like Manchin (D) and Session's (R) renewed war on drugs strategy.
Making mental health/care more proactive and more similar to dental care would go a long way to fighting to societal barriers to seeking healthcare. No one feels insecure and "broken" when they have dental pain. But as soon as the word "therapy" or "psychologist" comes up, its like people head for the hills. People need to know that most people would benefit from seeing a psychologist at least yearly.
|
On April 18 2017 08:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 18 2017 07:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again imagine if the USA was a modern country. More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients." Source I'd bet damn close to 100% of the people in prison have also suffered from SPD, suggesting ending the war on drugs and increasing psychological healthcare are likely better than anything else that's come out of any politicians mouth to address addiction, crime, or suicide. Certainly a hell of a lot better than folks like Manchin (D) and Session's (R) renewed war on drugs strategy. Making mental health/care more proactive and more similar to dental care would go a long way to fighting to societal barriers to seeking healthcare. No one feels insecure and "broken" when they have dental pain. But as soon as the word "therapy" or "psychologist" comes up, its like people head for the hills. People need to know that most people would benefit from seeing a psychologist at least yearly.
Don't even get me started on the difficulty of finding mental health solutions. I've been at it for over a week and 4 of the top results that I got from my own insurance company don't even exist anymore. Many others are listed as being nearby but are quite often out of state upon further review.
|
On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source
...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate?
|
On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate?
Can anything really be done about the full logs from the Obama administration? Because if not, that's a moot point and bringing it up only serves to distract from a regression of an already flawed process.
|
The Obama administration wasn't perfectly transparent, therefore Trump can be even less transparent than Obama.
|
On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate?
How does the whataboutism address the problems with the teump administration?
|
On April 18 2017 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 07:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again imagine if the USA was a modern country. More Americans than ever before suffer from serious psychological distress, and the country's ability to meet the growing demand for mental health services is rapidly eroding.
Researchers from NYU Langone Medical Center analyzed a federal health information database and concluded that 3.4 percent of the U.S. population (more than 8.3 million) adult Americans suffer from serious psychological distress, or SPD.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which conducts the National Health Interview Survey on which the research is based, SPD combines feelings of sadness, worthlessness, and restlessness that are hazardous enough to impair people's physical well-being. Previous survey estimates had put the number of Americans suffering from SPD at 3 percent or less.
The findings — believed to be the first analysis of its kind in more than a decade — were published in the journal Psychiatric Services online April 17. More than 35,000 U.S. households, involving more than 200,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 64, in all states and across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups, participate in the yearly survey.
Among the study's other key findings is that, over the course of the surveys from 2006 to 2014, access to health care services deteriorated for people suffering from severe distress when compared to those who did not report SPD.
"Although our analysis does not give concrete reasons why mental health services are diminishing, it could be from shortages in professional help, increased costs of care not covered by insurance, the great recession, and other reasons worthy of further investigation," says lead study investigator Judith Weissman, PhD, JD, a research manager in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone.
Weissman says the situation appears to have worsened even though the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) include provisions designed to help reduce insurance coverage disparities for people with mental health issues. She adds that the new report can serve as a baseline for evaluating the impact of the ACA and in identifying disparities in treating the mentally ill.
Comparing self-reported SPD symptoms across nine years, the NYU Langone research team estimates that nearly one in 10 distressed Americans (9.5 percent) in 2014 still did not have health insurance that would give them access to a psychiatrist or counselor, a slight rise from 2006, when 9 percent lacked any insurance. About 10.5 percent in 2014 experienced delays in getting professional help due to insufficient mental health coverage, while 9.5 percent said they experienced such delays in 2006. And 9.9 percent could not afford to pay for their psychiatric medications in 2014, up from 8.7 percent in 2006.
"Based on our data, we estimate that millions of Americans have a level of emotional functioning that leads to lower quality of life and life expectancy," says Weissman. "Our study may also help explain why the U.S. suicide rate is up to 43,000 people each year."
She says her group's next research report will detail how underdiagnosis of SPD impacts physician practices and encourages overuse of other health care services.
Senior study investigator and NYU Langone clinical professor Cheryl Pegus, MD, MPH, who also serves as director of general internal medicine and clinical innovation, says physicians, especially in primary care, can play a bigger role in screening people and detecting signs of SPD and potential suicide.
"Utilizing tools at the time of intake on all patients allows us to collect important data and devise strategies for care," says Pegus. "Our study supports health policies designed to incorporate mental health services and screenings into every physician's practice through the use of electronic medical records, and by providing training for all health care professionals, as well as the right resources for patients." Source I'd bet damn close to 100% of the people in prison have also suffered from SPD, suggesting ending the war on drugs and increasing psychological healthcare are likely better than anything else that's come out of any politicians mouth to address addiction, crime, or suicide. Certainly a hell of a lot better than folks like Manchin (D) and Session's (R) renewed war on drugs strategy.
Start by increasing the pay of those that work in the Mental Health fields across the board, from Social Workers to Caregivers. Reverse Reagan's decision to close state mental health facilities and go the way of reform instead of just increasing the population of prisons and homelessness. Have a heavy regulated state run facilities.
|
On April 18 2017 09:17 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate? Can anything really be done about the full logs from the Obama administration? Because if not, that's a moot point and bringing it up only serves to distract from a regression of an already flawed process.
Can we simply decry both as opponents of transparency?
On April 18 2017 09:24 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate? How does the whataboutism address the problems with the teump administration?
I wouldn't mind just a little bit of intellectual honesty in the criticism. Judging each one by unequal standards is precisely how you don't address problems in the Trump administration. You deserve each other to be perfectly honest.
|
The Republican Party has almost nothing to offer the average voter. Large majorities of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most cases; taxes on the rich should not be cut; undocumented immigrants should be given a path to legalization; the environment should be prioritized over energy production; and the government should spend more money on Medicaid.
But most Americans also think their government is corrupt and untrustworthy — and don’t get them started about those clowns in Congress.
For as long as the GOP was in the opposition, this latter fact provided cover for the former one. Congressional Republicans could perform conservative purity for their base, while offering vague promises of “change” to the broader, dissatisfied public. And since Paul Ryan and company couldn’t actually pass their most heinously unpopular ideas into law, delivering for the tea-party crowd didn’t preclude appealing beyond it: In their fight against Obamacare, Republicans could equate Medicaid expansion with Stalinism to everyone on their email lists — while attacking the law for cutting Medicare and failing to provide truly universal coverage to the general public.
This strategy worked well. Obamacare became deeply unpopular. And Republicans leveraged their base’s energy; Democrats’ complacency; white America’s rage at hearing instructions repeated in Spanish; and the public’s general appetite for change into full control of the federal government.
But now, Americans’ dissatisfaction with their government is no longer a crutch for the GOP, but a handicap. And fulfilling the party’s obligations to its base — while stringing along swing voters with sweet nothings about a “better way” — is much more difficult. Republicans tried to find a way to do both during the health-care-reform fight, and ended up alienating the party’s hard-liners and moderates alike. Americans finally discerned that the Republican alternative to Obamacare was a tax cut for the rich — and, for the first time, Obama’s signature law became popular.
After three months in power, the GOP is hemorrhaging support. Before Donald Trump took office, Pew Research found that 47 percent of Americans approved of the Republican Party, while 49 percent disapproved. In Pew’s latest poll, those figures are 40 percent and 57 percent, respectively.
Granted, the Democratic Party has also bled support since January. Back then, 51 percent of Americans approved of the donkey party, while 45 percent disapproved; today, those numbers are upside down. But still, the GOP has suffered a sharper drop in popularity, and now trails the Democratic Party by wide margins on a variety of political issues — including areas like foreign policy and immigration, where Republicans have historically enjoyed an advantage.
Source
|
On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate?
I agree. I do also think that the former members of the Obama admin who frequently whine that they "really were the most transparent adminstration ever" are flat out delusional (it's come up on politico's nerdcast a few times, and it's run by some former Obama speechwriters - basically, it showed that they thought there was 0 basis in reality for criticism on that front).
The visitor logs are a tiny point anyways, not sure why the press is focusing on it. Any controversial visitor was never going to need to sign it in the first place.
|
On April 18 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 09:17 Gahlo wrote:On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate? Can anything really be done about the full logs from the Obama administration? Because if not, that's a moot point and bringing it up only serves to distract from a regression of an already flawed process. Can we simply decry both as opponents of transparency? Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 09:24 hunts wrote:On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate? How does the whataboutism address the problems with the teump administration? I wouldn't mind just a little bit of intellectual honesty in the criticism. Judging each one by unequal standards is precisely how you don't address problems in the Trump administration. You deserve each other to be perfectly honest.
I never said Obama administration was perfect or perfectly trandparent, they were not. I just commented on the constant whataboutism as a means of not acknowledging the problems with donnie's complete lack of anything even resembling transparency.
|
On April 18 2017 09:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 09:17 Gahlo wrote:On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate? Can anything really be done about the full logs from the Obama administration? Because if not, that's a moot point and bringing it up only serves to distract from a regression of an already flawed process. Can we simply decry both as opponents of transparency? Show nested quote +On April 18 2017 09:24 hunts wrote:On April 18 2017 09:11 Danglars wrote:On April 18 2017 07:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― White House press secretary Sean Spicer defended the Trump administration’s decision not to disclose the White House visitor logs online on Monday by blaming the Obama administration for not being transparent enough.
“We’re following the law as both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act prescribe it,” Spicer said. “So it’s the same policy that every administration had up until the Obama administration. And frankly, the faux attempt that the Obama administration put out where they would scrub anyone who they didn’t want put out didn’t serve anyone well.”
As for the argument that the public deserves to know who is meeting with the president and his staff ― whether lobbyists or dignitaries ― Spicer turned it on its head. “We recognize that there’s a privacy aspect to allowing citizens to come express their views,” he explained.
In all, the statement was a head-spinner, if only because it boiled down to a declaration that the current administration would be less transparent than the prior administration because the prior administration wasn’t transparent enough. But beyond that twisted logic, there was also a general misconception about the Obama White House’s visitor logs.
Investigations showed that the logs were poorly maintained and often contained holes. But multiple Obama aides pointed out that the scrubbing was done for several openly declared reasons. Names were kept off the list if they were personal family visits or involved particularly sensitive government matters (a potential Supreme Court nominee or a national security-related meeting). This did mean the logs were not entirely complete. Obama officials also had a propensity to host meetings at nearby coffee shops to avoid the logs entirely.
But the notion that the previous administration ducked all embarrassing revelations is wrong. Reporters routinely used the published visitor lists to write stories critical of the Obama administration. The logs were used to tell the story of how the White House crafted a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to gain support for Obamacare, to show how airline lobbyists influenced the White House during merger talks, to provide detail about the growing influence of Google in government, and to show the steady flow of CEOs and lobbyists coming to the White House. Source ...which all boils down to preferring to believe the Obama administration's choices to scrub at will, and considering that above not releasing them at all. The Obama administration was the one that appealed a court ruling saying it was subject to FOIA release. How about press to release both and not play partisanship with Trump, letting Obama skate? How does the whataboutism address the problems with the teump administration? I wouldn't mind just a little bit of intellectual honesty in the criticism. Judging each one by unequal standards is precisely how you don't address problems in the Trump administration. You deserve each other to be perfectly honest.
Uh, this seems like some pretty straight-forward arithmetic:
1) Releasing more information to the public = more transparent.
2) Obama used to release certain information. Trump decided to stop releasing that information.
3) Therefore Trump is being less transparent in this instance.
Now if you want to argue Obama released wasn't transparent enough either, you can, but that doesn't bail Trump out at all. If you want to argue that the info Obama wasn't that useful anyways and Trump is releasing different, more useful information, you can, but I haven't heard about any such increase in transparency elsewhere. About the only thing more transparent about this administration is the leaks, which they hardly get points for considering they're pissed off and trying everything they can think of to stop them. And considering this administration is frequently and actively engaged in disinformation campaigns, it seems like they've pretty well earned the description of least transparent administration in a while.
|
President Trump is trying to put more muscle into his campaign slogan of "Buy American and Hire American" and is preparing to sign an executive order Tuesday aimed at strengthening existing government policies to support domestic products and workers.
Trump is expected to sign the order during a visit to the Snap-on tool company in Kenosha, Wis.
"The capability of the American middle class to make things and keep them running has been at the base of our nation's strength since its founding," Snap-on CEO Nicholas T. Pinchuk said in a statement. "We believe the President's visit emphasizes the need to nurture such manufacturing strength."
The "Buy American" portion of the executive order calls for stricter enforcement of laws requiring the federal government to buy American-made products when possible. Administration officials complain that those laws have been watered down over the years and often are sidestepped with government waivers.
"Buy American" provisions also may run afoul of free trade agreements, though the White House wants to conduct a full review before seeking adjustments to those trade agreements.
The "Hire American" part of the order aims to crack down on what the administration calls "abuses" of government guest-worker programs. The biggest target is the H-1B visa program, which is designed to help technology firms fill jobs requiring special skills but which critics say often is used to replace American workers with lower-paid foreign competitors.
"The H-1B visa program is commonly discussed as being for when employers have a labor shortage," said Daniel Costa, director of immigration law and policy research at the Economic Policy Institute. "The reality of it is that employers are not required to recruit and try to hire U.S. workers before they hire an H-1B worker."
The government issues 85,000 H-1B visas annually. In recent years, many of those visas have been snapped up by outsourcing firms that offer low-cost IT support to American corporations.
"A very big share of the visas are actually going to IT outsourcing companies," Costa said. "We do know that many of the companies that have this business model are the ones that are paying the lowest wages to H-1Bs."
The executive order calls on the departments of Commerce, Labor, Homeland Security and State to more strictly police the visa program. It also proposes changes, such as awarding H-1B visas to guest workers with the best skills and highest potential wages, rather than through a random lottery as is done now.
"The latest data that I've seen showed that 80 percent of the H-1Bs who were coming in came in below the local average wage," Costa said.
Some of the changes the White House wants would require cooperation from lawmakers.
"There's some things that the Trump administration could do at the margins that might help clean up some of the worst abuses in the program," Costa said, but "legislation is going to be required to really fix the program."
Although H-1Bs are the main focus of the order, other guest worker programs could also come under scrutiny.
The president himself has relied on guest workers with a different kind of visa — H-2B — to help staff his Mar-a-Lago resort, according to the Palm Beach Post. During the campaign Trump defended his use of foreign workers, saying it's difficult to find Americans willing to accept seasonal employment.
Source
|
United States24690 Posts
UPDATE: No explanation for door left ajar at Valpo school
Valparaiso Community Schools Superintendent Ric Frataccia said he is unsure why a rear door was left ajar Friday at Thomas Jefferson Middle School, allegedly allowing a man to enter with heroin, a hypodermic needle and a pocketknife.
"We're going to communicate to staff again about the importance of making sure the doors are not ajar," he said.
Source
|
On April 18 2017 00:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Image link says ZeroHedge so...yeah... worthless
It's a Rasmussen poll.
|
I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen's presidential tracking. It doesn't have an abstain option from what I remember, focuses on "strongly approve" vs "strongly disapprove" in most of its postings and analytics, and overall has shown way better numbers for Trump than every other poll out there (which have not shown as potent bounces).
Basically I'd take it with a grain of salt especially until any other polls show similar trends (as any systematic bias in sample selection or pure R/D slant won't really change the trend numbers much).
If you squint it seems like there's been less disapproval in some other polls, but it's not necessarily converting into approval in the ones with neutral/abstain options.
|
On April 18 2017 12:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I'm not a huge fan of Rasmussen's presidential tracking. It doesn't have an abstain option from what I remember, focuses on "strongly approve" vs "strongly disapprove" in most of its postings and analytics, and overall has shown way better numbers for Trump than every other poll out there (which have not shown as potent bounces).
Basically I'd take it with a grain of salt especially until any other polls show similar trends (as any systematic bias in sample selection or pure R/D slant won't really change the trend numbers much).
If you squint it seems like there's been less disapproval in some other polls, but it's not necessarily converting into approval in the ones with neutral/abstain options.
I don't know, looks pretty clear that the warmongering and the media thinking that makes him presidential has been improving his numbers.
How much or for how long is another story, but for now, more war talk has been better for Trump, as crazy as that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
