Polarization and increased popularity of the pro-choice position in the last 15 years or so. 2010 was actually kind of a low ebb for supporting legal abortion, it turns out.
And Dobbs has been a major recent accelerant of course.
Yeah I don't know if the political logic is correct (there are costs to accepting and touting endorsements from gaudily horrible people!) but it isn't complicated.
This is one of those rhetorical two-steps I really hate:
“The mental health crisis among young people is an emergency — and social media has emerged as an important contributor,” Murthy wrote in a New York Times op-ed at the time. “Adolescents who spend more than three hours a day on social media face double the risk of anxiety and depression symptoms, and the average daily use in this age group, as of the summer of 2023, was 4.8 hours. Additionally, nearly half of adolescents say social media makes them feel worse about their bodies.”
“It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,” he added. “A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe.”
Is it unsafe? You haven't proven otherwise, so it's time for a label!
Yeah the trick only works if the vast majority of care is purchased as those prices.
That said, I think it wouldn't be too hard to make it so that private insurers are also paying those rates, or something close to them, since they'd almost surely be considerably lower than what they're paying now. You could probably trade it for lower burden of paperwork for providers since there's just a lot of crazy hoop-jumping there now.
Also, these rates are set in a structured way, and one where providers and manufacturers generally have opportunities to make their case for higher rates.
The other stuff I have very weak preferences on. Like, I think going to an NHS-style actually socialized system would be a low-key disaster, but other than that I think it's really figuring out how to trade off between various priorities in ways that don't easily break down between "right" and "wrong".
I also have no illusion that this wouldn't have winners and losers, not just in terms of payers and providers, but also between different patient populations. On aggregate I think we would end up with both better outcomes and lower costs, but that's just on aggregate.
Got it. I think the area where I would probably break with you both is that I believe you actually really do need an authority setting reimbursement rates, no matter how the other arrangements shake out.
This is nigh-universal in other First World healthcare systems, and the general "no shopping around" aspect and generally extremely regulated nature of the market you wind up mean you don't have the same kind of drawbacks you usually get from that kind of set up.
Most of my career has been supporting Pharma as a health economist, and I've seen more than a few of those systems up close. They are far from perfect, but also profoundly less fished than what we have here.
1. I agree pretty much 100% with your take on the ACA.
2. I'm very interested (not in a rhetorical sense) in how Dark Matter thinks we should address the cost transparency problem.
I saw four of these movies in the theater: Alien: Romulus, Blink Twice, Cuckoo, and Trap, and basically landed the same place on all four of them that you did.
Trap really surprised me with how good it was, and Romulus did this weird thing where it spent a lot of time calling back to worse Alien movies but was still more than worth the time spent watching it.
Blink Twice I went to solely on the basis of the trailer and it was way darker than expected. I was surprised to see a trigger warning at the start (I don't think I've ever seen one for a theatrical feature before).
I think I may have also seen Longlegs in August. That movie sucked some goat ass.
I'm laughing less at the article's interpretation. As written, it's way too good to be true.
I read most of the actual responses as, "We don't really feel we know enough about Harris," and, "We don't really like Biden and want to see more daylight between him and Harris."
There was one that I really just read as a guy looking for an excuse to vote for Trump but I have nothing to back that up but intuition.
Nothing came across as racist or sexist, pace Philip H.
Although the sample size was small, the responses suggested Harris might need to provide more detailed policy proposals to win over voters who have yet to make up their minds.
It's hard for me to compare because Obama is the last presidential candidate I really got excited about.
Not in a sense that he betrayed us all or anything. More like:
Here's a guy who was a generational political talent and something of an inspirational figure, and he won, and he did an OK job all in all, but was neither amazing nor terrifying. Definitely not transformational.
Anyway, that aside he was never a great debater. Not horrible either. It just wasn't where he was really at his best and most comfortable.
However all that nastiness is really just the gravy on top of the core Trump pitch: you are being screwed by the elites. And IMO to understand why Trump had and still has some currency, you have to understand the foundation. Which is why I framed it the way I did.
I think it is the nastiness that is the foundation, and the paper-thin pretext about "elites" screwing you that is gravy on top, one that is mostly effective by deflecting (ironically) "elite" attention away from the nastiness and towards failures of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
I'll acknowledge that this is a take that is more flattering to our side of the aisle, which justifies some skepticism, but on the other hand, Trump's support has remained more or less constant, while his inability or disinterest in actually solving any problems has been demonstrated as clearly as possible in a way that was simply not possible prior to 2016.
Like, yes, I think you would have had to have been an absolute rube to believe he would "grow into" the Presidency in 2016, but we have since had four years of him proving repeatedly that he didn't.
What hasn't changed is the dishonesty, the racism and xenophobia, and the promises of authoritarian retribution and political violence. All of those have held on much more consistently than the anti-"elite" messaging.
Serious questions, why did you omit the sentence of that paragraph where I said the below in italics?
Because I really didn't think it changed how charitable you were being. Not objectionable on its own (I wouldn't have commented), but I think the framing around "working illegally" and "big business interests" really puts a very benign gloss on Trump's appeals which were, and are, often openly bigoted and far from scrupulous in restricting conversation to people in the country illegally (working or otherwise).
It’s worth asking who is and isn’t in the mainstream on the subject, and how far over the line Trump’s stances really are, at least if we care about how voters feel about the subject. My totally unsupported guess is that the ugliness of his rhetoric may well dampen the potential support for a major crack down and show of force at the border, not because people would be against it but because of how profoundly alienating the messenger is.
That's a plausible theory, but it is also all the more reason to emphasize the ugliness of the rhetoric. Because there's a lot of other reasons to question whether Trump actually does represent the mainstream--including his and the GOP's polling on the issue when he actually held power, which was dismal.
But I am really not sure what people are trying to prove with these responses.
That Trump is a viciously bigoted authoritarian extremist--which is both true and entirely consistent with him also being indifferent to pre-MAGA Rightward orthodoxy on Medicare and Social Security.
Well, sure, but the HVAC guy is likely to be richer than the professor, in addition to having considerably more pull with not only the local government officials, but state officials and his Congresscritter as well.
Reality however is that those elusive Obama-Trump voters (aging, white people without college degrees of which there are many in the upper midwest) are a lot more motivated by preserving their benefits than they are in protecting big business’ interest in letting huge numbers of foreign nationals come into the country to work illegally.
This is an absurdly charitable take on Trump's 2016 immigration rhetoric.
Which is, I suspect, why there's so much resistance to the (true, objectively) argument that he moderated the GOP's fiscal messaging in 2016: it usually comes alongside a description of Trump's messaging on other matters that makes them look much more moderate than they are.
So we can compare the political/economic power of the guy who advertises on the local AA ballpark with the political/economic power of the people you read about in the paper.
If the "elite" were routinely limited to the C-suite of Fortune 500 companies or members of Congress or something, sure, we could do that and local business owners, even successful ones, will rarely rate.
In practice, though, complaints about the elite are just as likely to be addressed at college professors or people who just have college degrees and white collar jobs.
Yes, what really matters about the elite is not their political or economic power, or even their ability to succeed in challenging and competitive environments, but a bunch of superficial cultural signifiers like the TV shows they watch.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
The content (which I did indeed read all of) did nothing to make the title less funny.
"
Polarization and increased popularity of the pro-choice position in the last 15 years or so. 2010 was actually kind of a low ebb for supporting legal abortion, it turns out.
And Dobbs has been a major recent accelerant of course.
"
Yeah I don't know if the political logic is correct (there are costs to accepting and touting endorsements from gaudily horrible people!) but it isn't complicated.
"
Ah, yes, noted pro-choice advocate Dick Cheney!
On “Anatomy of a Conspiracy Theory”
Yeah it's wild how everybody let Kamala Harris get away with saying Vance boned a couch in the middle of the debate with Trump.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
The two horrible tastes that taste horrible together!
On “Group Discussion: The Push For Social Media Warning Labels”
This is one of those rhetorical two-steps I really hate:
Is it unsafe? You haven't proven otherwise, so it's time for a label!
On “Watch And React Live: The Harris Trump Debate”
Yeah the trick only works if the vast majority of care is purchased as those prices.
That said, I think it wouldn't be too hard to make it so that private insurers are also paying those rates, or something close to them, since they'd almost surely be considerably lower than what they're paying now. You could probably trade it for lower burden of paperwork for providers since there's just a lot of crazy hoop-jumping there now.
Also, these rates are set in a structured way, and one where providers and manufacturers generally have opportunities to make their case for higher rates.
The other stuff I have very weak preferences on. Like, I think going to an NHS-style actually socialized system would be a low-key disaster, but other than that I think it's really figuring out how to trade off between various priorities in ways that don't easily break down between "right" and "wrong".
I also have no illusion that this wouldn't have winners and losers, not just in terms of payers and providers, but also between different patient populations. On aggregate I think we would end up with both better outcomes and lower costs, but that's just on aggregate.
"
Got it. I think the area where I would probably break with you both is that I believe you actually really do need an authority setting reimbursement rates, no matter how the other arrangements shake out.
This is nigh-universal in other First World healthcare systems, and the general "no shopping around" aspect and generally extremely regulated nature of the market you wind up mean you don't have the same kind of drawbacks you usually get from that kind of set up.
Most of my career has been supporting Pharma as a health economist, and I've seen more than a few of those systems up close. They are far from perfect, but also profoundly less fished than what we have here.
"
1. I agree pretty much 100% with your take on the ACA.
2. I'm very interested (not in a rhetorical sense) in how Dark Matter thinks we should address the cost transparency problem.
On “The Month in Theaters August 2024”
I saw four of these movies in the theater: Alien: Romulus, Blink Twice, Cuckoo, and Trap, and basically landed the same place on all four of them that you did.
Trap really surprised me with how good it was, and Romulus did this weird thing where it spent a lot of time calling back to worse Alien movies but was still more than worth the time spent watching it.
Blink Twice I went to solely on the basis of the trailer and it was way darker than expected. I was surprised to see a trigger warning at the start (I don't think I've ever seen one for a theatrical feature before).
I think I may have also seen Longlegs in August. That movie sucked some goat ass.
On “Watch And React Live: The Harris Trump Debate”
I'm laughing less at the article's interpretation. As written, it's way too good to be true.
I read most of the actual responses as, "We don't really feel we know enough about Harris," and, "We don't really like Biden and want to see more daylight between him and Harris."
There was one that I really just read as a guy looking for an excuse to vote for Trump but I have nothing to back that up but intuition.
Nothing came across as racist or sexist, pace Philip H.
On “Debate Recap: Harris Played the Tune and Trump Danced To It”
Of all the alt-right influencers who made something of a name for themselves in the mid-'10s, Loomer may well have been the most pitiful.
And now she's part of the GOP nominee's inner circle.
On “Watch And React Live: The Harris Trump Debate”
Who knows it's literally 10 people.
"
Although the sample size was small, the responses suggested Harris might need to provide more detailed policy proposals to win over voters who have yet to make up their minds.
lol sure
On “Debate Recap: Harris Played the Tune and Trump Danced To It”
The remarkable thing about that Erickson Xeet is the tacit acknowledgement that Trump treats racist lies the way Ron Burgundy treats a teleprompter.
On “Watch And React Live: The Harris Trump Debate”
It's hard for me to compare because Obama is the last presidential candidate I really got excited about.
Not in a sense that he betrayed us all or anything. More like:
Here's a guy who was a generational political talent and something of an inspirational figure, and he won, and he did an OK job all in all, but was neither amazing nor terrifying. Definitely not transformational.
Anyway, that aside he was never a great debater. Not horrible either. It just wasn't where he was really at his best and most comfortable.
On “Open Mic for the week of 9/9/2024”
So it's the guys who put ads up at Little League games after all?
Wild.
On “The Party of the Middle”
I think it is the nastiness that is the foundation, and the paper-thin pretext about "elites" screwing you that is gravy on top, one that is mostly effective by deflecting (ironically) "elite" attention away from the nastiness and towards failures of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.
I'll acknowledge that this is a take that is more flattering to our side of the aisle, which justifies some skepticism, but on the other hand, Trump's support has remained more or less constant, while his inability or disinterest in actually solving any problems has been demonstrated as clearly as possible in a way that was simply not possible prior to 2016.
Like, yes, I think you would have had to have been an absolute rube to believe he would "grow into" the Presidency in 2016, but we have since had four years of him proving repeatedly that he didn't.
What hasn't changed is the dishonesty, the racism and xenophobia, and the promises of authoritarian retribution and political violence. All of those have held on much more consistently than the anti-"elite" messaging.
"
Do you think during the 2016 election, he moderated his stance on Medicare and Social Security, from Republican orthodoxy?
Yes, no question, and no need to check any links.
I remember it pretty clearly, and even remember that a few Leftward pundit types were fooled by it.
"
Serious questions, why did you omit the sentence of that paragraph where I said the below in italics?
Because I really didn't think it changed how charitable you were being. Not objectionable on its own (I wouldn't have commented), but I think the framing around "working illegally" and "big business interests" really puts a very benign gloss on Trump's appeals which were, and are, often openly bigoted and far from scrupulous in restricting conversation to people in the country illegally (working or otherwise).
It’s worth asking who is and isn’t in the mainstream on the subject, and how far over the line Trump’s stances really are, at least if we care about how voters feel about the subject. My totally unsupported guess is that the ugliness of his rhetoric may well dampen the potential support for a major crack down and show of force at the border, not because people would be against it but because of how profoundly alienating the messenger is.
That's a plausible theory, but it is also all the more reason to emphasize the ugliness of the rhetoric. Because there's a lot of other reasons to question whether Trump actually does represent the mainstream--including his and the GOP's polling on the issue when he actually held power, which was dismal.
But I am really not sure what people are trying to prove with these responses.
That Trump is a viciously bigoted authoritarian extremist--which is both true and entirely consistent with him also being indifferent to pre-MAGA Rightward orthodoxy on Medicare and Social Security.
"
Well, sure, but the HVAC guy is likely to be richer than the professor, in addition to having considerably more pull with not only the local government officials, but state officials and his Congresscritter as well.
"
This is an absurdly charitable take on Trump's 2016 immigration rhetoric.
Which is, I suspect, why there's so much resistance to the (true, objectively) argument that he moderated the GOP's fiscal messaging in 2016: it usually comes alongside a description of Trump's messaging on other matters that makes them look much more moderate than they are.
"
If the "elite" were routinely limited to the C-suite of Fortune 500 companies or members of Congress or something, sure, we could do that and local business owners, even successful ones, will rarely rate.
In practice, though, complaints about the elite are just as likely to be addressed at college professors or people who just have college degrees and white collar jobs.
"
Yes, what really matters about the elite is not their political or economic power, or even their ability to succeed in challenging and competitive environments, but a bunch of superficial cultural signifiers like the TV shows they watch.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.