Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 2:13 PM
Sun Nov 15
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/12/09
Unfortunately, Fox and the Repugs will end up befitting more than the administration. It's not wise to call out the media arm of your opponents just before midterms. Now they can both play the martyr AND come out as your opponent with the good graces of their viewers.
We need more Fox execs and anchors caught with their pants down. The channel is practically made of titanium now; the only way it can be brought down is for it to implode from within.
10/12/09
[www.tudou.com]
@6: 30
10/12/09
Fox News viewers will just see this as a freedom of speech issue, in that Fox can do whatever they want with their opinion shows, and the president has no right to deem that as "illegitimate."
I don't know much about news stations vs. blogs, but does that mean that any conservative blogs out there spouting off rants are going to be deemed "opponents?"
I think Obama making any comments about Fox News is just weird and possibly inappropriate.
10/12/09
10/12/09
The television ratings race is not a two-way competition, and Fox's goal is to win a plurality of the ratings. The way for them to do this is to set themselves apart and fire up the base. Being singled out by the White House definitely helps.
But the White House has different goals. They don't really care if Fox gets its plurality and wins in the ratings war. They do care, however, if the independent section of the country gives credence to the types of things Fox says about Obama and what he's trying to do.
So the goal here is to position Fox as a partisan player rather than as a reliable news source. Such positioning, of course, is not much of a stretch, if indeed it can be called a stretch at all.
And as Fox continues to whip itself into an anti-Obama frenzy, the GOP finds itself paralyzed. Held hostage by its precious base, it cannot take even tentative steps towards the sane middle in hopes of enlarging its support.
And unlike ratings battles, electoral battles tend to be two-way competitions when they reach the final round.
10/12/09
LBJ's solution was to kiss the base good-bye, which makes him one of the most fascinating figures in the era's history. As he said to his aide Bill Moyers at the time of the Civil Rights Act, "I think we've lost the South for your lifetime and mine." Which is precisely what happened.
When your party's base is out of sync with the country at large and fiercely unwilling to bend, you've got a serious political problem.
10/12/09
The base is gonna be with Fox New no matter what. It's the only news outlet that reinforces their views, so Fox needs no help with them.
For the "independents" who like to claim impartiality, though, this can only hurt Fox. Because now Fox is goaded into responding, and all they can do is defend themselves. And them openly warring with Obama makes it pretty obvious which side they're on to anyone who's still convinced they're actually fair and balanced.
The only way for Fox to "win" this would be to say nothing, put some pro-Obama token talking head on and tell everyone that their programming speaks for itself. By getting into a tit for tat, though, they're only marginalizing themselves further.
10/12/09
10/12/09
Fox will just get a load of geriatric mouth breathers to stand on your lawn talking about liberty and how gays are the devil.
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
Our enemies only dream about being this effective. I think, as usual, it's a shrewd move.
10/12/09
10/12/09
[www.reuters.com]
10/12/09
10/12/09
10/12/09
You'd fit in perfect in Iran. They aren't too fond of opposing views either.
I'm not a fan of the assholes you mentioned above, but espousing an opposing view to our gov't in America is not only ok, it is a right.
* SEDITION - Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason. Treasonous conduct consists of levying war against the United States or of adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
10/12/09
There is a "link" between no health insurance and the death of 45k people. There is also probably a link of cancer, heart disease, diabetes or other common but serious medical ailments to those under Medicare's age cut off for this group as well. Let's not forget to add poverty into the mix.
We both agree that health insurance reform must happen. I just get leery of people who are throwing down the causation card when it is a contributing factor, not a cause.
For instance, we don't know from this study whether or not any of these people would have survived if they had health insurance or how long they were uninsured. The study didn't look at that. Additionally, the study was released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or "single-payer" health insurance.
10/12/09
Of course, that's not absolute causation. The absolute cause of death in all humans is being born. But this was a study to determine how many deaths were attributable to lack of health insurance--not gun shots or food borne illness or drunken driving -- among US deaths in a given year. And this is the number they came up with. Would they have died anyway? Yes, we all will. But for 45,000 Americans every year, the deciding factor in their death is the fact that their lack of health insurance prevents their access to health care.
And, yes, the study was released by an advocacy organization. But it wasn't carried out by one. It was carried out by Harvard Medical School. You're asking me to take your word over the Harvard University Medical School. Sorry, no.
10/12/09
@didihosifas: Let me know when you come up with networks wet with liberals (MSNBC doesn't count- one network does not an ocean make). The whole sea of network talking heads are conservative to the core, which is why we Americans are all sea-sick.
10/12/09
Conclusions. Uninsurance is associated with mortality. The strength of that association appears similar to that from a study that evaluated data from the mid-1980s, despite changes in medical therapeutics and the demography of the uninsured since that time. ([www.ajph.org])
Associated is very different than "in large part." However, we both agree that it is still too many people.
10/12/09
Definitely, though, take it up with Reuters. Be interested to see what its editors have to say about it. Not being a science writer, I think associated is pretty strong. Later on that page they give a long list of factors they adjusted for in their study, which seems fairly rigorous.
10/12/09
[www.ajph.org]
Mediahohoho's comment above was perhaps an overstatement. Of course, the lack of insurance was not, by itself, the cause of those deaths. The causes - if we want to be specific - are whatever diseases or injuries afflicted the subjects of the study prior to their deaths. However, though technically incorrect, it is common when something contributes strongly to a result to say that it was or is a cause. Often such statements are educated guesses based on strong correllative evidence.
"The lack of clean drinking water kills hundreds of thousands worldwide each year". "Smoking has historically been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide".
In the case of smoking, the act of smoking by itself is not lethal - even if that act is repeated frequently and consistently. However, the act of smoking can result in a diminution in the health of the cardio-vascular and respiratory systems, which in turn may lead to one or more potentially lethal diseases. Or it may not. What is certain is that a very strong and consistent correlation has been demonstrated between smoking and increased mortality relative to non-smoking populations. The correllative evidence here is sufficiently strong that one can (though mathematically and in terms of rigorous logic perhaps cannot) legitimately claim a causal link.
Generally, the first step to empirically demonstrating causality is to demonstrate a strong correlation. Correlation, after all, is a necessary condition for causality. Often causality cannot be empirically observed. In this case, an investigator can use correllative evidence to develop, modify, or support a plausible theory. So, outrightly dismissing a statement of causality which is based on correllative evidence - "Correlation is not causality" (which is never false) - is not always a good practice.
Anywhoo, let's put aside the issue of causality. Even if the lack of insurance is a contributing factor and not a cause, does that mean it is any less worthy of concern? Does it diminish the import of the study's conclusions? The study shows empirically - what should be obvious through common sense - that a lack of insurance correllates to increased mortality. Given that 45M people lack health insurance currently and given that more and more of the U.S. population loses coverage each year, the study shows what everyone who doesn't have their head in the sand should already know and fear: that people are likely dying and more will likely continue to die as a result of our current health insurance/health care system.
PS: They did throw poverty into the mix. You're right to question the duration of un-insurance. This is a limitation the authors noted in their study. "We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview. Point-in-time uninsurance is associated with subsequent uninsurance.[6] Intermittent insurance coverage is common and accelerates the decline in health among middle-aged persons.[33] Among the nearelderly, point-in-time uninsurance was associated with significant decline in overall health relative to those with private insurance.[13] Earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7% and 11% of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified.[13] If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample. We excluded 29.5% of the sample because of missing data. These individuals were more likely to be uninsured and to die, which might also bias our estimate toward the null."
Here's a draft of the study: [files.me.com]
I'd be happy to explain it to you.
10/12/09
10/12/09
What I'd like to know is if we are really comparing apples to apples with regard to populations here. By that I mean, was the rate of illness roughly similar for both groups? My issue would be if the deck is already stacked against the uninsured group because they simply have more debilitating and potentially life threatening illnesses, is it truly a fair comparison? I'm thinking that many people who don't have insurance may not have a job or unable to work full time, perhaps due to illness, and may not yet qualify for disability.
I absolutely agree with you that it certainly makes common sense that without health insurance you will have less desirable outcomes. I am for health insurance reform, just not thrilled about a gov't option that won't cover 100% of Americans.
10/12/09
[www.pnhp.org] (pdf)
10/12/09
NHANES III measured participants’ self-perceived health in 5 categories: excellent, very
good, good, fair, and poor. We combined the last 2 groups because of small numbers. NHANES physicians performed physical examinations on all participants and provided an impression of overall health status rated as excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor.[21] We combined the final 2 groups because of small numbers. We analyzed body mass index (BMI; weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) in 4 categories: less than 18.5; 18.5 to 25; more than 25 to less than 30; and 30 and higher.
NHANES III oversampled several groups, including Black persons, Mexican Americans, the very young (aged 2 months to 5 years), and those aged older than 65 years. To account for this and other design variables we used the SUDAAN (version 9.1.3, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC) SURVIVAL procedure and SAS (version 9.1, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) PROC SURVEYFREQ to perform all analyses. We (as did Franks et al.5) employed unweighted survival analyses and controlled for the variables used in determining the sampling weights (age, gender, and race/ethnicity) because of the inefficiency of weighted regression analyses.[22]
10/12/09
Thanks again Atlas. I may PM you with some questions tomorrow. I find the health care/ insurance debate fascinating and I enjoy learning more.
10/12/09
You're just going to encourage these people.
10/12/09
And when you say it's just going to encourage them, I don't really see how it can get worse. If FOX goes even more partisan they'll be helping the White House paint them that way. And besides, FOX has already spawned Beck. Rock bottom.
10/12/09
You don't negotiate with terrorists. In this case, you don't acknowledge them.
I'd love to know who these people are who are on the fence about Fox News, I suspect you're either lapping up their propaganda or you're horrified that people like this exist.
10/12/09
10/12/09
? I think that one might have got away from them.
10/06/09
09/30/09
But join us for the Project Runway live blog tomorrow night!
09/30/09
09/30/09
See you and the crew tomorrow night.
09/30/09
see ya'll tomorrow night.
09/30/09
See you next week.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
[vimeo.com]
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
Nice video, but where's the Kogi BBQ truck??
09/30/09
IMO, Ms. Fuller's follow up tweet was even better than the original.
09/30/09
Buffer, I get. But hotter? What, too many layers?
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
08/17/09
08/17/09
08/07/09