Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/3/2014 8:56:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577020

Ted, I estimate that the number of uninsured Americans went down by 2-3M thanks to ObamaCare. That's a weak estimate. The numbers are much higher than that. It's funny how Obama himself was celebrating that 7M sign-up figure, even going as far as declaring the debate "over." Tenchu's 7th rule of partisan politics: Declare victory and move on. When does Tenchu declare victory........at the beginning? And when did you start talking in the third person? Of course, Obama will find it almost impossible to "move on." ObamaCare will continue to be a political burden for himself and his fellow Democrats for years to come I guess you haven't seen the latest polls.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/3/2014 9:46:52 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577020

Ted, I estimate that the number of uninsured Americans went down by 2-3M thanks to ObamaCare. ....please explain just how you arrived at that number.......I doubt there was any actual INCREASE in those covered.......certainly less than one million.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/4/2014 12:03:40 AM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1577020

>> I estimate that the number of uninsured Americans went down by 2-3M thanks to ObamaCare. I really do know how anyone could come up with a number, one way or the other. Because the propaganda machine(s) are operating full tilt. If you're talking about "insured" (vs. Medicaid beneficiaries) I'm not sure there are ANY more. We know five or six million policies were cancelled and a significant number lost coverage through attrition and employers dropping coverage, and the 7 million "newly insured" are presumed to be individuals (not policies, since the administration is trying to inflate the numbers) AND we know the real number will work out to be maybe 4 or 5 million. So, in terms of insureds, it could be +/- a million. Medicaids, I don't know think anyone really has any idea about because the turnover in Medicaid is always high. Medicaids for whom coverage toggles three or four times in a year are routine. Medicaid coverage often lapses because covered individuals won't go re-qualify unless they are sick and want to go to the doctor. I've seen situations where they will doctor-shop just to find one who will see them without verifying benefits. The idea that these people yearn to have wall-to-wall health coverage is bullshit. Some do, some don't.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/4/2014 2:15:16 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577020

"ObamaCare will continue to be a political burden for himself and his fellow Democrats for years to come." Sure it will! Just like SS and Medicare...LOL!

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/4/2014 12:08:25 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577020

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/5/2014 1:56:34 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577020

What happens when you die in North Korea? A funeral system explained "It’s not only the living in North Korea who are pitiful, the dead are, too" April 4th, 2014 nknews.org Mina Yoon

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/5/2014 2:23:03 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1577020

Why Americans Are Losing Their Religion at a Startling Rate Here are some of the factors contributing to the massive decline in religiosity in America. alternet.org New research from Allen Downey, a computer scientist at Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts, shows a startling correlation between the rise of the Internet and the decline of religious affiliation in the United States. According to MIT Technology Review, back in 1990 only eight percent of the U.S. population did not have a religious affiliation. Twenty years later in 2010 that number was up to 18 percent. That is a jump of 25 million people. Americans seem to be losing their religion, and from Downey’s research we may have an answer. The data Downey looked at is from the General Social Survey, which according to MIT Technology Review is “a widely respected sociological survey carried out by the University of Chicago.” Since 1972, the survey has been measuring the population’s demographics and attitudes. The approach to looking at the survey material was to see how socioeconomic status, education, religious upbringing and other factors correlated with the drop in religious affiliation. This is a good time to talk about the difference between correlation and causation. The data from the survey shows a relationship between these factors and decreased religious affiliation, but not direct causation. Downey’s findings show that religious upbringing is the largest influence on religious affiliation. However a drop in religious upbringing starting in 1990, does not account for the entire drop of religious affiliation. According to the analysis, religious upbringing was important, but only explicated 25 percent of the drop. Higher education at the college level also has a relationship with the drop in religiosity. But the study shows that rates of the college education from the 1980s to 2000s only went up a little under 10 percent (from 17.4 to 27.2). Statistically, this can only account for five percent of the drop. The internet, if you can believe it, has a much higher correlation than college education. According to the study, Internet use went from near zero percent in the 1980s, to 53 percent of the population spending up to two hours a week online in the 2000s. MIT Technology Review reports: “This increase closely matches the decrease in religious affiliation. In fact, Downey calculates that it can account for about 25 percent of the drop.” Twenty-five percent — the same percent correlation as religious upbringing. And while this is only a correlation (X might cause Y, Y might cause X, W and X might cause Y, etc.) and not a direct causation (X causes Y), Downy says, “Correlation does provide evidence in favor of causation, especially when we can eliminate alternative explanations or have reason to believe that they are less likely.” The way to eliminate the “Y maybe causing X” possibility is looking at the inverse. From MIT Technology Review: “For example, it’s easy to imagine that a religious upbringing causes religious affiliation later in life. However, it’s impossible for the correlation to work the other way round. Religious affiliation later in life cannot cause a religious upbringing (although it may color a person’s view of their upbringing). It’s also straightforward to imagine how spending time on the Internet can lead to religious disaffiliation. ‘For people living in homogeneous communities, the Internet provides opportunities to find information about people of other religions (and none), and to interact with them personally,’ says Downey. ‘Conversely, it is harder (but not impossible) to imagine plausible reasons why disaffiliation might cause increased Internet use.’” Of course we still have to contend with W and X causing Y — or a third factor that is causing both increased internet use and decreased religious affiliation. Thus far however, Downey has controlled most of the possible factors including income, environment, socioeconomic status, etc. This still leaves us with nearly half of why religious affiliation is dropping in the United States unknown. One quarter going to religious upbringing, the other to the internet, and a small portion to higher education. A factor that was ruled out is date of birth, because that cannot alone cause why you are or are not religious. So what could this mystery factor be? h/t MIT Technology Review

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (778332)	4/6/2014 9:35:23 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577020

Evangelical 'Fight Churches' Let Pastors Duke It Out DOCUMENTARY CAPTURES PHENOMENON IN HUNDREDS OF CHURCHES By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff newser.com Posted Apr 6, 2014 4:40 PM CDT (NEWSER) – "Can you love your neighbor as yourself and at the same time knee him in the face as hard as you can?" That question is posed in Fight Church, a new documentary about churches that promote mixed martial arts fighting among pastors, Huffington Post reports. The film's directors were surprised to find hundreds of churches that attract congregants and build community with fighting. "Beyond churches that had formal or informal fight ministries, we discovered innumerable churches that included MMA as a component of a men's program," said co-director Daniel Junge. While Jesus urged followers to "turn the other cheek," advocates of MMA church fighting say Jesus of Revelation provides a tougher image, and Biblical heroes like Samson and David showed their strength of the battlefield. "We don’t fight out of meanness," a pastor featured in the movie tells ABC News. "We have no hate or bitterness in our heart." Most "fight churches" are evangelical, white, and have struggled with attendance, the New York Times reports. The Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention have criticized the fighting, but mainstream churches have "feminized men," says a pastor in the trailer. Says another: "Tough guys need Jesus too."