Ohhhh, so you just reassert your point about Democrats never backing down, but Republicans do without any factual basis whatsoever! What a novel losing debate strategy!

Obamacare isn't perfect and needs to be fixed or replaced with something better. Not the Trumpian "something great" if it should be replaced, but something that is well thought out and addresses what Obamacare couldn't accomplish if the entire premise is systemically not going to work.

Did you see what I did there? I *gasp* recognize that sometimes things don't work! OMG! IT'S AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also didn't say it's a "fucking disaster", because it isn't. If it were that, explain how the uninsured rate has dropped very significantly. It was never going to achieve 100% insurance rate. The only way that happens is with single payer.

Here's how stupid you are. You don't seem to understand that if Obamacare isn't the answer, you're just making single payer universal health care more likely to be enacted. The American people are not going to go back to being denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. They're just not gonna. Obamacare is the least left policy you could possibly enact that would help control costs and decrease the number of people who are uninsured.

You can scream to the top of your lungs, but Obamacare was enacted to remedy real problems. I'm even sympathetic to the argument that those were real problems, but Obamacare isn't the answer, but if you're going to make that argument, you have to propose something that has historical precedent and rationale to solve those problems. And you simply don't have one.

So again, keep struggling in the quicksand until it swallows you whole, and single payer is enacted.

Your evidence about health insurance premiums is anecdotal, and quite frankly, you don't seem to understand that your numbers and description of what happened to her is absolutely ridiculous. You don't get on medicaid because your insurance premiums go up under Obamacare. You qualify for Medicaid because of a lack of income.

Secondly, the claim is absolutely ridiculous that her premiums went up that much. For data we have available, *unsubsidized* premiums for the lowest cost silver plans for data we have in the Obamacare exchanges was $257 a month for a single person.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analysis-of-2017-premium-changes-and-insurer-participation-in-the-affordable-care-acts-health-insurance-marke
tplaces/

If she qualifies for Medicaid, then surely she could go on a silver plan in the Obamacare exchanges and come out likely paying less. Oh, and, on top of that, she would EASILY qualify for federal subsidies if she qualified for medicaid.

Oh, and btw, without Obamacare, if health care companies decided to raise those premiums just to price gouge, what protection would she have? Not much. Obamacare insures that you can only take in so much that isn't spent on health care.

Your story is completely utterly full of crap on so many levels, it's clear you made it up.

I'm dismissing all your numbers are being unsubstantiated bullshit. Have premiums gone up? Sure have. Were they going up before Obamacare? Yep! There's a healthy debate about how much Obamacare is contributing to premium increases. Obamacare isn't perfect. I'm happy to discuss rationally what could be done to improve Obamacare, or another plausible alternative. But not with you, since you pull numbers out of your ass that easily are completely debunked.

BTW, FYI, Obamacare was not intended to lower premiums nor to completely eliminate the number of uninsured. It was to control costs in all forms and reduce the amount of uninsured, as well as reform the health care system to eliminate problems like being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, people having to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, etc.

Some of its goals it succeeded in, and some not so much. That's a fair assessment at this point. Medical related bankruptcies have not declined. Being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition has been eliminated. Premiums have gone up, but we simply don't have enough data to determine if they've slowed or accelerated since Obamacare was implemented. If you go by the immediate years after Obamacare was fully implemented, they slowed.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/Adler_Exhibit1.png

More recently, they've accelerated. It's important to note that health care costs are not solely determined by premiums alone. It's interesting you cherry picked premiums only to prove costs haven't been controlled because premiums are your best case to make that point. Copays, coinsurance, deductibles, prescription drugs, all those play a role. IE, if the average American pays more in premiums but less everywhere else, it's possible the net average is lower for total costs paid for health care.

These are complex topics that have no room for bringing in rose colored ideologically tinted lenses to force the outcome to be "a fucking disaster", where you'll bring in anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely utterly made up.

Just how far are you willing to make stuff up? Hillary Clinton, according to you, has never in the last 40 years done anything substantially positive.

REALLY?! Look, I understand not necessarily wanting her to be President. OK, fine. But that claim is absolutely ridiculous. Over $2 billion has been raised by the Clinton Foundation, and over 90% of that has gone to charitable work according to independent studies. Before you go down the path of "paid access", blah blah blah, even if that were true, the reality is $1.8 billion went to charitable works around the world through the Clinton Foundation Hillary Clinton helped to create and run.

That's not substantial?!?!

Dude, just stop. The only people who believe that BS are people within your bubble. You're not convincing anyone else who didn't already think Hillary Clinton personally killed Vince Foster. You're just making people like me think you're a complete loon.

I don't see a linked site.

And in regards to the WHO "saying" that going vegetarian (he more likely said plant-based vegan, but I'm too lazy to look around), I don't remember where he said that, but if the WHO didn't outright say that, maybe it's just a matter of logic that if they say quitting smoking decreases your likelihood for premature death by X% and going plant-based decreases your likelihood for premature death by >=X%, then effectively they are "saying" that.

But this is all speculation, because I have no idea which paper/video you guys are talking about.

Shouldn't, but because they so consistently kill unarmed people, then support the killings with a blue wall, the success is no longer up for debate, they're failing. That doesn't mean they don't do good, or should be abolished, it means eradicating the culture of 'us vs them' that comes FROM police at every turn....starting with prosecutions. I'm glad to see that's the case here.
Agreed, there needs to be a system of third party oversight, or special prosecutors for all police misconduct cases, and prosecutions for obstruction for officers that don't help in those prosecutions.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can protect an African American male from being shot by police....hands up don't shoot has gotten a pretty large number killed since it became a slogan. Nothing but being a non black male decreases your chances of being shot...not even being 12.

Cops should have to justify pulling their gun at all, it should trigger an alert at the station and start a live stream from their cameras, accessible by the public (but maybe with a day's delay so there's no chance of interference) which should be always on and a felony to tamper with. I can't fathom why the body cams can turn off, or why they aren't live streamed to a public server...the videos are public property, like any product of a public servant.

At 1:43 the conclusion made from the graph is "5lbs at most" when the graph shows a different story. Those blue shadows on either side of the line show some kind of uncertainty whether it be best case and worst case scenarios or margin for errors.

I know that sounds like nitpicking, but it'd be like someone saying they love cars and know all about them, but when you ask what their favourite type of car is they say "red ones". It presents itself as scientific but then makes a high school level scientific mistake that just scratches at the surface of credibility.

[calories in] - [calories out] = [net calories absorbed or lost]

Calories are directly proportional to mass or weight. If you burn more than you ingest then you lose weight, it is unavoidable. The "best" way to lose weight is to be negative in the above sum, either by increasing your energy expenditure (exercise) or decreasing your energy intake (food). And of course the body needs essential vitamins and whatnot to function and remain healthy.

I have a friend who took tablets to increase his resting metabolism. He lost weight, but also sweated profusely, had a high heart rate that worried him and regained the weight straight after coming off them.

Probably, but there are all kinds of clear coating. They could develop one with minimal reflective properties and minimal absorptive properties, but you're right, even then it would decrease the effectiveness, but maybe not so much that it would lose it's usefulness.

I think in most applications, the nano fibers are encased in resins or other chemicals that cause them to clump together, making them much safer (note that I don't say "making them safe").
In pure powder form, yeah, they're a bit scary to have something that can float in air that can also burst cell walls. I always used a facemask and gloves when I was in his "lab", and even so I'm sure I was contaminated. Now I wish I had worn a full anti-contamination suit.

What makes you believe and trust in Trump's motivation to do this? I accept that the figurehead of a larger than life, brash character taking the fight to the industrialists is a nice (if a bit Ayn Rand-ish) mental image that fits a romantic view of things.

But is it any more realistic to believe that a man motivated all his life by the desire to consolidate wealth and power would altruistically suddenly decide to reach out and make drastic changes to create a world which works for the poorest, least educated member of society? On balance of evidence, is that more likely than him turning out to be another Bush? Who i hope we can agree probably didn't make life any easier for the average working family considering wealth inequality has increased steadily since say the early 90s? Is a man at the top of that wealth inequality gap more likely to increase or decrease said gap?

Bernie's supporters feel the urgent need for radical change that essentially deals with social equality. They feel like people like Trump have been manipulating the system against them all their lives - whether that's a fair accusation or not. They're going to need convincing that Trump knows what to do and will do it. Policy documents would probably help his credibility.. it might not be the normal way of doing things but these aren't normal times. I don't see Bernie supporters, sick of being lied to, buying into phrases like "trust me" and "i know".

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

"Kaiser Permanente Encourages Plant-Based Diets

VegNews Daily
Kaiser Permanente Encourages Plant-Based Diets

By Melissa Nguyen | May 16, 2013
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

The healthcare company’s peer-reviewed medical science journal tells physicians to promote plant-based diets to patients.To address the rising cost of healthcare and skyrocketing rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, medical publication The Permanente Journal recently released an article encouraging physicians to advise patients to reduce meat, dairy, and processed food consumption and implement a plant-based diet. It points to research showing that consuming whole foods can reduce the need for medication for chronic illnesses and decrease risk of fatal ischemic heart disease, all while offering the most cost-effective prevention and low-risk medical intervention. “Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet … Physicians should consider recommending a plant-based diet to all their patients,” the article states."

thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

What a load of crap. As if a cop would react like that to a white speeder.


Like, where's the pointers on launch control, or tips on decreasing your ETs to the 1/4 mile?

Just silly.

There are some things I disagree with in this video that are debatable, and things I agree with, but the fact about how Sanders polls against Trump or Cruz compared to Clinton is ridiculous.

He's completely ignoring the fact that most voters don't even know Sanders is a socialist yet, or generally much about any of the candidates. Most know that Hillary is Bill's wife, Bill got head when he was president, there are controversies surrounding them (most cooked up, a few have some legitimacy, not that the average voter knows the difference), and she was Secretary of State under Obama. If they know who Sanders is, he's that old guy who has some good points about how government and Wall Street are corrupt.

The poll numbers provided won't matter in a general election by the time that occurs. They could be more in Sanders' favor, against him, or what they are now, but what they currently are now won't have much to do with that. Polls change this far out from the general election.

If you want the chance at a more impactful significant economic and political revolution at the cost of an increased chance that Trump, Rubio, or Cruz will win, support Sanders. If you want to decrease the chances of Trump, Rubio, or Cruz winning the general election, but you understand it's going to be more of maintaining the status quo by doing so, support Clinton.

Call a space a spade at least.

TFB are disingenuous scammers at worst, and blinded by greed at best.
Claiming this as a community focus is deceptive.. unless suppressing and ripping off the community counts, in which case, touché.

Their next attempt will be to trademark the notions, occurrences and content of "an idea", "a thought", "a feeling" and just to cover everything else off and be proper dicks "a thing".

Link to their decreasing subscriber count, every downwards tick = a smile
http://www.livecounts.x10host.com/?channel=Fine%20Brothers%20Entertainment

We've secretly decreased the density of the water in this pool, let's see if Andreas notices a difference...

It's not all dairy farms, but it's most. See http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/430528/err47b_1_.pdf or page 7 of http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/sb/sb978.pdf (note my requirement of .edu not some blowhard blogger).

Namely:
The number of dairy farms with fewer than 500 cows (your "good places") has decreased significantly and the number with more than 500 has increased majorly. And those farms with more than 500 account for 50% of the milk made.

So, yeah. There are some good farms out there. But the number is shrinking and they're unable to compete with the large factory farms.

Also, from one of the docs cited above:
In 2000, about 71.1 percent of production came from
operations of 100 or more cows, up from 55.2 percent
in 1993. Production from the smallest herds, not a
large share to begin with, fell by about half—from 4.1
to 2 percent

---

Rather than refute any of the other claims above, I'll just leave it at this. I have vegan exhaustion. My point is that these aren't just made up vegan facts from PETA, these are studies by the USDA.

New, just released ocean temperature data has shown a dramatic increase in temperatures in the Northern Pacific, and a dramatic decrease in surface temperatures in the Northern Atlantic. As I understand it, those readings are not consistent with normal 'El Nino' patterns. Could this be the beginning of the end of thermohaline circulation? If that happens we'll be facing unavoidable, unpredictable, worldwide, disastrous climate change in short order.
Without the current created by the thermohaline circulations, the oceans die. Equatorial waters become much hotter...fast...and arctic and Antarctic waters become much colder...fast. Ocean organisms can't live through that kind of change, not in any sizeable way anyway. Without the oceans, the entire food web dissolves and we die.
On top of that, without the currents bringing oxygen to the lower oceans, they become anoxic. The bacteria that live in those deep waters will feed on the dead sea life and create toxic gases (hydrogen sulfide) which have, in the past, completed the extinction events by wiping out nearly all life. Once that starts, it's unstoppable and is the end. Let's hope these readings are just an over active El Nino.

What we do today has little to no effect for 50-100 years. That makes us at least 50 years too late to solve this problem, and we are still exacerbating it rather than solving it to this day.
We're hosed.
If you plan on having children in this climate, you are a child abuser IMO, and are adding to the problem with that one action more than almost any other action normal people perform. Your children will most likely not survive to old age, and absolutely won't experience the same quality of life you have.

That conveniently leaves out the fact that income tax rates have plummeted since the 1940s. That's been the big consistent change, not the government increasing spending as a percentage of GDP, which wildly fluctuates.

The reason why there's a fight to get this funded is because there's a portion of this country that thinks you must pay for every new expenditure by cutting spending elsewhere because the national debt will kill us if it doesn't come down, and taxes can never ever ever ever ever be raised ever ever ever ever. They will absolutely never consider that raising taxes is worth funding anything, and are completely okay with cutting funding for things that are even needed and are worth the money (see cutting funding for PBS).

I say "principled" because they sure don't ask for reduced spending to pay for when they need help. See Katrina and other disasters, Mitch McConnell's fund to help nuclear power workers, etc.

But the fundamental problem here is the flat refusal to accept the reality that:
1. The national debt and annual deficits can, will, and should fluctuate depending upon circumstances. The "sky is falling" reaction to added debt is beyond ridiculous. This country has flourished economically under almost non-stop deficit spending. This isn't to say raising the national debt and running annual deficits is always good, but it sure as hell isn't always bad.
2. The same reaction to tax raises is also ridiculous. Tax rates can be increased or decreased, depending on circumstances, and raising or lowering them isn't inherently good or bad.

A sane reaction to this whole thing isn't - "well, they spend money on things that don't matter, so that's why this can't be funded."

It's "I don't care if it costs every single one of us an extra dollar in taxes in a year, or we need to cut funding on (insert wasteful program here), we need to get this done."