Orly?

"After years of being lambasted by the left as uneducated rubes, a recent study by a Yale law professor proves members of the Tea Party are actually more likely to understand scientific issues than is the rest of the population."

http://www.westernjournalism.c...

"Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party population.

When composing histograms of the scientific inference abilities of liberals and conservatives, he discovered that those who described themselves as tea party supporters came out pretty well, based on National Science Foundation standards of evaluation:"

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/1...

~Sigh~ SMH

Strat

No, you're not understanding what happened. The new law made lots of insurance policies no longer allowed. For example: if you're a married couple 80 years old, you still have to carry, by law, insurance that includes full maternity care. So a lot of existing insurance simply evaporated. People who lost those insurance plans lost their health insurance. They then had to go find a way to buy new insurance - usually at much higher prices, often from a different carrier ... which wouldn't do business with the doctor you used to use.

This isn't a matter of the doctors retiring. This is about the law forcing people to buy very expensive new health insurance from a new provider that - because of all of the heavy new requirements of what and who they must now cover - greatly reduce the number of doctors they'll work with. And so people lost access to their familiar doctors, despite Obama's promise that no such thing would happen - remember, he said nobody would have to leave their plans (a lie).

Trust the scientists, they are always as correct as their data. Let us forget Luminiferous aether, Young Earth theory, Static universe, Immovable continents, Stress theory of ulcers, ...

The first part alone already makes it worthwhile.

Which is exactly why I said what I said. There are people who show up here to scold people about holding onto (or exploring) some of the more exotic physics frameworks and compare that to being a True Believer (in the traditional religious sense). These are NOT the same things.

He said that because people were worried that the doctor the currently had would suddenly be unavailable to them when the law kicked in. This is exactly what happened, to a lot of people. It happened to our family. The insurance policy with which we were perfectly happy evaporated because the law considered it unacceptable (the new law requires that we buy insurance that covers, among other things, maternity care ... which is super handy now that we're in our 50's). The new plans from which could choose did not include the doctor we're happy with, and precluded the use of two of the nearest (and best) hospitals. Our premiums went from roughly $250 a month to over $500, and our deductible went from $2,500 to $12,000.

Each of these things was predicted with great clarity by not only the people opposed to the law's passing, but also by the people who WROTE the law. But in front of cameras, Obama lied about each and every point of it, repeatedly, and deliberately. If he had been honest, and if he'd talked Pelosi and Reid into also being honest about the consequences of the law (instead of the "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it" explanation she provided), it would never have passed. Democrats talked into voting for it have since said they wouldn't have voted for it if they'd understood the huge new costs, taxes, and service limitations that it puts on middle class families.

You know, and Obama knew, EXACTLY what "you can keep your doctor" meant when he said it - he was trying to tamp down the very vocal concerns that exactly what has happened would in fact happen. He knew it was going to, but he lied about it anyway. What I don't understand is why you're trying to spin it for him. What do you gain by attempting to back up the deception?

Hilarious.

What does it matter if there is some future change to the law (not counting the illegal unilateral changes made by the president by selectively choosing whether to follow the statute's specific requirements once he realized it wasn't politically expedient). If you've already lost your insurance plan, or you've had to give up your doctor, and can no longer use the convenient nearby hospital because of the law's impact (all things that we were promised wouldn't happen, which the law's partisan authors knew WOULD happen, and about which the president repeatedly and deliberately lied), then that damage is already done. Not that it matters. Even if you can afford one of the new plans, the deductibles are hugely higher - making the effective premiums even higher than their new, higher stated values.

So for many, many people the "affordable" care act has: blown away existing insurance plans, removed choices of doctors and hospitals, doubled and sometimes tripled premiums, and in many cases quadrupled deductibles. All of which was well known in advance, and was proactively lied about, repeatedly, by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Republicans also knew it was coming, which is why NOT ONE of them voted for that monstrosity of a law.

Turkey fat is industrial waste, putting it in cars and milkshakes would be more environmentally sustainable than continuing to ignore the reality.

we obsessive about food in out society, this attempts to solve that, but to me it looks like a different flavor of food obsession rather than the elimination of it.

Call me when I can get a photosynthesis upgrade.

I've lived through both 1.0 and 2.0 Silicon Valley. It eventually always becomes about money. Sellout Valley

Because something requires education doesn't make it wrong. The expense is somewhat hard to measure, because we subsidize the meat and dairy industry in the US by $5B. With estimates of around $400B in cost to society (I'm a bit skeptical of that one, I have no done the research myself, relying on Google here).

If meat were more expensive, such that the poor could not afford it, then we as a society would be forced to educate everyone on how to get the necessary nutrition on a vegan diet. I don't think this is impossible, and there are other cultures that have huge sections of society that are meat-free and a few that are also dairy free.

ps - I had a meatball panni today. vegetarian/veganism is a scientific curiosity to me, I haven't adopted it as a religion.

disturbingly neutral. Like scientifically engineered inoffensive blandness.

I think if I were too busy to care about eating, it would be a useful product. Imagine the weightloss if eating became a boring chore. I might even find other things to do instead to avoid eating, like clean the house.

Too fatty. Besides, vegans are grass-fed. Gives better flavor than grain-fed.

There is probably more nutrition in the ramen packaging than in the ramen itself. And vitamin supplements are somewhat controversial as many of them are not significantly bio-available, meaning when you're popping vitamins you're throwing your money down the shitter.

But who is to say that something like Soylent can't be done in a ramen form factor? It kind of defeats the philosophy of Soylent, but if you never bought into that philosophy then no real loss there. Top Ramen or someone ought to invest in some R&D so they can dominate this industry.

How is that off topic? The entire thread is about some hand-waving "priorities" she'll have as president. Which has absolutely nothing to do with which compromises she's willing to make the legislative branch when it comes to things like tax credits or other regulatory/funding matters. Pointing out how disingenuous she's been on pretty much every other issues she's ever mentioned is NOT off topic. It points out exactly how to think about anything and everything she says during her limited, poll-tested public remarks.