Elizabeth Warren 2020

[Bama Chick 28596]

This. Is. AMAZING.

[Enchubben 5502]

9 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yea we certainly don’t need historians or journalists. No value to society at all there.

Nailed that strawman. Please point out where I said we didn’t need them.(you won’t find it)

I said those people should not be complaining about not making a crap ton of money and barely getting by because student loans. Those people should be prepared to budget and live within the means of a historian or journalist salary when they choose that degree or career path.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Nailed that strawman. Please point out where I said we didn’t need them.(you won’t find it)

I said those people should not be complaining about not making a crap ton of money and barely getting by because student loans. Those people should be prepared to budget and live within the means of a historian or journalist salary when they choose that degree or career path.

More precisey they should look at the cost of the degree, and the annual salary of those professions to make an intelligent decision about which school they'll attend.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13530]

Teenagers need to be more responsible when making decisions that will affect the rest of their lives.

 

Signed,

Look What Democrats Made Me Do Adults

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Teenagers need to be more responsible when making decisions that will affect the rest of their lives.

 

Signed,

Look What Democrats Made Me Do Adults

Who ever said that ?  Nice little meaningless post there. I hope your degree wasn't somehow critical thinking related.

[bad_teammate 13115]

9 hours ago, troph said:

You do realize this parable though it uses monetary symbolism - even the word “penny” in some translations - isn’t about government forgiveness of student loans but the mercy of God?

Do people make literary and Biblical references only when there is a 1:1 correlation between every detail? Be serious.

The forgiveness of debt (student or otherwise) is not about "gimme free stuff!" (very Republican, by the way). Pursuing an education is not some frivolous luxury, it's a necessity to succeed in our increasingly-unfair economy. Forgiving that debt is about making it easier for those people to succeed and unburden then from debt they never should have had to take on in the first place. It's a justice issue, not a "gimme free stuff!" issue.

Quote

Misusing scripture isn’t cool.

Is there any other way to use it?

[Js1 84994]

I pAiD mInE oFf So ThEy CaN tOo

 

[RomaVicta 29704]

7 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

This. Is. AMAZING.
 

She remains my candidate and will likely remain so until she drops out. We live in a country where too many will not listen to her because they're a little annoyed by the pitch of her voice or that the physical package is slight.

She's brilliant and bold. She's so clean that the hate engine can only generate Pocahontas to ridicule her.  A debate between Warren and Trump would be a delight. She'd likely crush any other GOP candidate on the stage.

Go, Elizabeth!

[Enchubben 5502]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The forgiveness of debt (student or otherwise) is not about "gimme free stuff!" (very Republican, by the way). Pursuing an education is not some frivolous luxury, it's a necessity to succeed in our increasingly-unfair economy. Forgiving that debt is about making it easier for those people to succeed and unburden then from debt they never should have had to take on in the first place. It's a justice issue, not a "gimme free stuff!" issue.

May be needed to achieve the highest level of success in certain career paths, but still not a right. I think by default that makes it a luxury or privilege to an extent.

Freedom of choice. All people should have the option to pursue higher education, but that choice carries risk and reward. They should reap the rewards and also fully bear the risk.

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

Does anyone have a link to last night's town hall? I've seen clips, But I'd like to watch the whole thing.

[troph 24498]

Is there any other way to use it?

 

Parables are by definition symbolic but that doesn’t mean you bastardize them for any purpose. They have specific symbolic meaning. If you want to use it for a quippy surly comeback be my guest but it’s irrelevant to a substantive response to the issue at hand.

 

 

As for debt forgiveness - I’m fundamentally opposed to free college education across the board. I just am, I think the return on investment allows for the payment for the asset so to speak. I think the lenders benefited greatly in the 2000s from reform for their benefit - variable rates, market rates, and the federal government reduced subsidies. I think we need more need based grant money, we need to subsidize interest for more students during study, we need to fix rates, lower rates, length repayment plans and maybe most importantly we need to lower costs - HOWEVER - we also need to realize that as high of a cost as higher ed is, the system is fundamentally broken - even the best universities use what is essentially modern indentured servitude to teach undergrads. Education at any level is ridiculously unfit for business style management. Tons of fixed costs like buildings and maintenance and a ton of labor costs too, it’s not a business anyone should ever consider starting - and I talk about it that way because cutting costs is extremely difficult when you have high capex and high labor costs. Those that can pay need to pay, but lenders need be part of the solution given the security of a lifetime of earnings for repayment. And need based grants are a must. The rest of us have to pay and those that can pay some (all grads imo) should pay some.

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

10 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

May be needed to achieve the highest level of success in certain career paths, but still not a right. I think by default that makes it a luxury or privilege to an extent.

Freedom of choice. All people should have the option to pursue higher education, but that choice carries risk and reward. They should reap the rewards and also fully bear the risk.

How many times must it be pointed out that for many, this risk is disproportionately higher for certain students than others. I love this fantasy world where everyone has the exact same financial background.

[Anastasis 23328]

39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is there any other way to use it?

[Biff Tannen 45439]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

This. Is. AMAZING.
 

She is fundamentally correct.  She is advocating that the government work as it is intended.  I don't know how one really argues that.

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[Bruh Man 3160]

I'd rather her pander with ideas and policy than the other side that panders to whitey's fear of anyone tanner than Uncle Jesse.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Pandering with policy ideas?  

You mean the way politicians are supposed to campaign in a healthy democracy?

Where does Warren think she is? New Zealand? 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

No kidding.  That's how a representative democracy is supposed to work. 

[406W30th 1111]

Gave money to her campaign this past weekend. If I could choose one candidate to become president, it would be Warren. I'm worried less about her electability the longer her campaign goes on, but it's hard to discount the misogynist idiot vote.

 

 

[Bookman 4603]

I'm not sure moderates will support someone that far left.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

3 hours ago, Bookman said:

I'm not sure moderates will support someone that far left.

What makes her far left?  Taxing the rich and using the money to fund healthcare and education?  Or is it her life long career of zealously fighting public and private corruption? Or is it her overt contempt for the big corporations and banks that control nearly everything in our society? 

Yes, moderates will hate those things. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Js1 84994]

SoOoO fAr LeFt! 

[babysdaddy 2710]

She is one tough lady.  Vibrating in anger about Trump's actions. If she wins the primary and gets to debate him she will eviscerate him.  

[Bruh Man 3160]

It's been a great week for Warren.

 

Tweet storm from black activists. -

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Bruh Man

[Dbeasy 14931]

What makes her far left?  Taxing the rich and using the money to fund healthcare and education?  Or is it her life long career of zealously fighting public and private corruption? Or is it her overt contempt for the big corporations and banks that control nearly everything in our society? 
Yes, moderates will hate those things. 

I’ll provide you a nice little rule on what policies will resonate with a moderate/centralist view. Fairness vs Responsibility. .

Good policy should address in a balanced way the responsibility of the individual vs. responsibility of government to ensure that the individual has a fair opportunity. Policies that ignore one or the other are bad.

[bad_teammate 13115]

This plan sucks. I don't like this.

Liz, please stop letting your interventionist-capitalism-as-stick side show. Please drown it in a bathtub.

(The practical result of this will be cutting funding for hospitals in poor areas and giving bonuses to hospitals in rich areas, exactly as happened in education when, starting in the W and Obama era, we played the same game with schools. This sucks. This fucking sucks.)

Edited April 25, 2019 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9208]

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This plan sucks. I don't like this.

Liz, please stop letting your interventionist-capitalism-as-stick side show. Please drown it in a bathtub.

(The practical result of this will be cutting funding for hospitals in poor areas and giving bonuses to hospitals in rich areas, exactly as happened in education when, starting in the W and Obama era, we played the same game with schools. This sucks. This fucking sucks.)

 

Guh. Yeah. This is in my wheelhouse. Hospitals in rich and/or urban areas attract top talent far more easily than rural and poor areas. "Less desirable" hospitals also have much higher turnover rates of RNs, techs, and even doctors. One of the strongest correlations to HCAHPS scores is employee turnover. I'd expect similar with these mortality rates. You'll end up with death spirals for poor hospitals. Lower tier talent and/or turnover->suboptimal results->less funding->even more difficulty attracting and retaining talent. 

And then there's the fact that for-profit and nonprofit hospitals work completely differently. And you'd have hospitals doing all sorts of things to cook the numbers, some of which could be a net-negative to outcomes.

Lots of issues. This idea seems half-baked. I get the general direction but practically, it'd probably be a disaster.

Edited April 25, 2019 by BradInATX

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

On 4/24/2019 at 7:41 AM, 406W30th said:

Gave money to her campaign this past weekend. If I could choose one candidate to become president, it would be Warren. I'm worried less about her electability the longer her campaign goes on, but it's hard to discount the misogynist idiot vote.

 

 

Donated more this morning. We are truly a nation of idiots and deserve what we get if someone like Warren isn’t given a fair chance at securing the nomination

[bad_teammate 13115]

51 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 I get the general direction but practically, it'd probably be a disaster.

No Child Left Behind

[BradInATX 9208]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No Child Left Behind

Yeah, I actually almost made that comparison but am not familiar enough with the education system to really go deep into that.

[TwiceHorn 31084]

1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

 

Guh. Yeah. This is in my wheelhouse. Hospitals in rich and/or urban areas attract top talent far more easily than rural and poor areas. "Less desirable" hospitals also have much higher turnover rates of RNs, techs, and even doctors. One of the strongest correlations to HCAHPS scores is employee turnover. I'd expect similar with these mortality rates. You'll end up with death spirals for poor hospitals. Lower tier talent and/or turnover->suboptimal results->less funding->even more difficulty attracting and retaining talent. 

And then there's the fact that for-profit and nonprofit hospitals work completely differently. And you'd have hospitals doing all sorts of things to cook the numbers, some of which could be a net-negative to outcomes.

Lots of issues. This idea seems half-baked. I get the general direction but practically, it'd probably be a disaster.

Not to mention that maternal mortality has more to do with things quite outside a hospital's control.  Lifetime poor nutrition, beetus, high blood pressure, etc. etc.

[BradInATX 9208]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not to mention that maternal mortality has more to do with things quite outside a hospital's control.  Lifetime poor nutrition, beetus, high blood pressure, etc. etc.

Yep. I suppose you could control for patient demographics, but man, that's a lot of complexity.

[bad_teammate 13115]

19 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Yep. I suppose you could control for patient demographics, but man, that's a lot of complexity.

It's astonishing the absurd lengths we'll go to just to avoid spending money directly on racial and economic justice.

[406W30th 1111]

Made another donation in the form of some merch purchase:

 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

This plan sucks. I don't like this.

Liz, please stop letting your interventionist-capitalism-as-stick side show. Please drown it in a bathtub.

(The practical result of this will be cutting funding for hospitals in poor areas and giving bonuses to hospitals in rich areas, exactly as happened in education when, starting in the W and Obama era, we played the same game with schools. This sucks. This fucking sucks.)

Wouldn't rich hospitals already have a better baseline for mortality rates, meaning they would not get the bonus without improving the existing stats?

Edited April 25, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13115]

32 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Wouldn't rich hospitals already have a better baseline for mortality rates, meaning they would not get the bonus without improving the existing stats?

Given their built-in advantages (which would only exacerbate with a reward system), they are in a better position to improve regardless of the baseline.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Given their built-in advantages (which would only exacerbate with a reward system), they are in a better position to improve regardless of the baseline.

Why exactly is it a problem if they reduce an already-low mortality rate for black women even more because of this policy? 

[Bruh Man 3160]

Sent $200 her way.

Edited April 25, 2019 by Bruh Man

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Bruh Man said:

Sent $200 her way.

Damn son, big ups. I'd love to see if she's getting a nice bump in donations after these past couple of events.

[bad_teammate 13115]

3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Why exactly is it a problem if they reduce an already-low mortality rate for black women even more because of this policy? 

Why would this policy result in lower mortality rates?

I'm not trying to be flippant here, I'm genuinely curious as to why or how these types of incentives are supposed to work. They are built on the presumption that the people working at the hospitals now don't really care if these women and babies die and that a vague monetary reward will help them.

That is not the problem.

As mentioned above, the reason mortality rates are high is factors outside the hospital.

It's the exact same thing that happened with schools.

Results are bad in poor areas because of generational poverty, structural racism, and long-term inequality. The solution from the neo-liberal/neo-con establishment was to punish or reward schools and teachers for the bad scores.

It has accomplished nothing good. Schools are not better than they were and they are laser-focused on testing. A classic case of perverse incentives.

If you want better results in schools, fix the underlying problems behind why bad results are happening.

If you want better results in hospitals, fix the underlying problems behind why bad results are happening.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why would this policy result in lower mortality rates?

I'm not trying to be flippant here, I'm genuinely curious as to why or how these types of incentives are supposed to work. They are built on the presumption that the people working at the hospitals now don't really care if these women and babies die and that a vague monetary reward will help them.

That is not the problem.

As mentioned above, the reason mortality rates are high is factors outside the hospital.

It's the exact same thing that happened with schools.

Results are bad in poor areas because of generational poverty, structural racism, and long-term inequality. The solution from the neo-liberal/neo-con establishment was to punish or reward schools and teachers for the bad scores.

It has accomplished nothing good. Schools are not better than they were and they are laser-focused on testing. A classic case of perverse incentives.

If you want better results in schools, fix the underlying problems behind why bad results are happening.

If you want better results in hospitals, fix the underlying problems behind why bad results are happening.

Effectiveness of the plan is a different issue.   If the policy does not result in lower mortality rates, hospitals won't get the bonus, and the rich hospital bonus vs. poor hospital cuts issue you have raised doesn't happen. 

As far as why it would work, I have no idea.  I know nothing about this issue, and am trying to learn.  But this is Warren's rationale:

“The best studies that I’ve seen put it down to just one thing: prejudice,” Warren said Wednesday. “Doctors and nurses don’t hear African American women’s medical issues the same way as they hear the same things from white women.”

[bad_teammate 13115]

And what if mortality rises due to factors that have nothing to do with the policy (i.e., continued intergenerational poverty and various vectors of oppression)? The cuts will happen for reasons outside of the hospital's control and those they serve, the underprivileged, will suffer accordingly.

We already have this model playing out directly in front of our eyes with No Child Left Behind.

Why do we have to keep doing the same failing move over and over again?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And what if mortality rises due to factors that have nothing to do with the policy (i.e., continued intergenerational poverty and various vectors of oppression)? The cuts will happen for reasons outside of the hospital's control and those they serve, the underprivileged, will suffer accordingly.

We already have this model playing out directly in front of our eyes with No Child Left Behind.

Why do we have to keep doing the same failing move over and over again?

I don't quite see the analogy you are making.   No Child presents an issue of learning vs. test scores as a poor proxy for learning.  The dispute is in large part over the goal.  Lower mortality rates are an unquestionably good goal. 

And Warren references studies saying that bias (unconscious or otherwise) leads to doctors and nurses paying less attention to black women.   If that isn't true, then the proposal is baseless, but if true, a financial interest could be beneficial.  Is Warren misrepresenting those studies? 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Also, to be clear, this policy concerns childbirth mortality.   Why is that a result of issues that cannot be addressed by better medical care?   Seems to me to be very susceptible to a fix at the doctor/nurse level. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Looking around, I am seeing lots of references to studies confirming that black people are generally treated worse by medical professionals, accounting for other health factors.  For example:

 

People of color, particularly black people, are treated differently the moment they enter the health care system. In 2002, the groundbreaking report “Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care,” published by a division of the National Academy of Sciences, took an exhaustive plunge into 100 previous studies, careful to decouple class from race, by comparing subjects with similar income and insurance coverage. The researchers found that people of color were less likely to be given appropriate medications for heart disease, or to undergo coronary bypass surgery, and received kidney dialysis and transplants less frequently than white people, which resulted in higher death rates. Black people were 3.6 times as likely as white people to have their legs and feet amputated as a result of diabetes, even when all other factors were equal. One study analyzed in the report found that cesarean sections were 40 percent more likely among black women compared with white women. “Some of us on the committee were surprised and shocked at the extent of the evidence,” noted the chairman of the panel of physicians and scientists who compiled the research.

In 2016, a study by researchers at the University of Virginia examined why African-American patients receive inadequate treatment for pain not only compared with white patients but also relative to World Health Organization guidelines. The study found that white medical students and residents often believed incorrect and sometimes “fantastical” biological fallacies about racial differences in patients. For example, many thought, falsely, that blacks have less-sensitive nerve endings than whites, that black people’s blood coagulates more quickly and that black skin is thicker than white. For these assumptions, researchers blamed not individual prejudice but deeply ingrained unconscious stereotypes about people of color, as well as physicians’ difficulty in empathizing with patients whose experiences differ from their own. In specific research regarding childbirth, the Listening to Mothers Survey III found that one in five black and Hispanic women reported poor treatment from hospital staff because of race, ethnicity, cultural background or language, compared with 8 percent of white mothers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/magazine/black-mothers-babies-death-maternal-mortality.html

 

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Looking around, I am seeing lots of references to studies confirming that black people are generally treated worse by medical professionals, accounting for other health factors.  For example:

 

 

Yeah that's being accepted more now that even when all things are equal, black (women in particular) are often not treated as nicely or have their concerns taken as seriously by doctors.

Edited April 25, 2019 by GSU&UT

[henrygandorf 29169]

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not trying to be flippant here, I'm genuinely curious as to why or how these types of incentives are supposed to work. They are built on the presumption that the people working at the hospitals now don't really care if these women and babies die and that a vague monetary reward will help them.

i think it's more of a case of "this is a problem, we know it's a problem, and while there are decades of bullshit that caused these underlying issues at the root of the problem, we need to try to reverse them as soon as possible by whatever means at our disposal in the short-term, before we get into fixing the long-term."

while i agree 100% with what you said (that i quoted) it almost seems like bribing your kids to get good grades.  is it the right thing to do?  probably not.  does it yield positive results?  yeah, it actually might.  in this case, i think you do what could possibly help, and you worry about the validity or logic of the process later.

[bad_teammate 13115]

35 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

And Warren references studies saying that bias (unconscious or otherwise) leads to doctors and nurses paying less attention to black women.   If that isn't true, then the proposal is baseless, but if true, a financial interest could be beneficial.

What does this proposal have to do with doctor/nurse attitudes towards black women? I'm lost as to what that connection is supposed to be. (This is the same argument used with regard to teachers/administrators and black children.)

31 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Also, to be clear, this policy concerns childbirth mortality.   Why is that a result of issues that cannot be addressed by better medical care?

Causes of maternal death.

According to a 2004 WHO publication, sociodemographic factors such as age, access to resources and income level are significant indicators of maternal outcomes. Young mothers face higher risks of complications and death during pregnancy than older mothers...

Not all mothers walk into the delivery room in the same physical or emotional condition.

Hypertension, results of unsafe abortions, age, obesity, etc... are all major factors that have nothing to do with the immediate care of delivery doctors and nurses. Even postpartum bleeding and infection, the main causes of maternal death, are influenced by these outside-the-hospital factors.

(Again, the parallel here is between the home lives of poor children and the school results/behavior of those same kids.)

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think it's more of a case of "this is a problem, we know it's a problem, and while there are decades of bullshit that caused these underlying issues at the root of the problem, we need to try to reverse them as soon as possible by whatever means at our disposal in the short-term, before we get into fixing the long-term."

while i agree 100% with what you said (that i quoted) it almost seems like bribing your kids to get good grades.  is it the right thing to do?  probably not.  does it yield positive results?  yeah, it actually might.  in this case, i think you do what could possibly help, and you worry about the validity or logic of the process later.

Paying kids for good grades is another perverse incentive issue, it leads to worse results.

Money motivations make things worse.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What does this proposal have to do with doctor/nurse attitudes towards black women? I'm lost as to what that connection is supposed to be. (This is the same argument used with regard to teachers/administrators and black children.)

Causes of maternal death.

According to a 2004 WHO publication, sociodemographic factors such as age, access to resources and income level are significant indicators of maternal outcomes. Young mothers face higher risks of complications and death during pregnancy than older mothers...

Not all mothers walk into the delivery room in the same physical or emotional condition.

Hypertension, results of unsafe abortions, age, obesity, etc... are all major factors that have nothing to do with the immediate care of delivery doctors and nurses. Even postpartum bleeding and infection, the main causes of maternal death, are influenced by these outside-the-hospital factors.

(Again, the parallel here is between the home lives of poor children and the school results/behavior of those same kids.)

Paying kids for good grades is another perverse incentive issue, it leads to worse results.

Money motivations make things worse.

The way it would work is that hospitals are given an incentive to make black women a priority.   If the message is being pushed and thereby more present in the minds of doctors and nurses, they may be more cognizant of the disparities in care as they are providing and work to address those disparities.

[henrygandorf 29169]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Paying kids for good grades is another perverse incentive issue, it leads to worse results.

Money motivations make things worse.

that study is not surprising.  i meant it as a parallel to the issue, which i totally agree with your stance on (it's what i said to myself when first reading about it).  it's something that might not work, but seems like they're just throwing quick-fix ideas at it, and waving money in people's faces is typically how that works.