The new Senate Bill is now available, for those who want to actually read what’s in the bill:
A basic article from a non-partisan source
@TiaG It’s not that I necessarily disagree with KHN’s analysis, but to call them non partisan is certainly a stretch. They were vocal cheerleaders for the ACA, and have always seemed to take a quite liberal bent on medical issues.
Well they’re supposed to be non-partisan according to their mission statement and mandate, they’re funded by a non-profit that aims to be completely nonpartisan although KHN is editorially independent.
Whether they succeed or not is up for debate (I am a journalist and I am somewhat skeptical of the notion that anyone can truly be “non partisan” unless they live in a state of pure ignorance and came from the planet Zod two seconds ago. I think a better metric is just how hard they focus on getting at the truth, how robust their fact-checking is, and who they contact as sources. The truth, as nebulous and squishy as that can be, is ultimately what we’re all after, I hope.)
I personally don’t like most center left/right reports, because they lean one way or the other and don’t let the reader know what trade-offs they made. I much prefer reading far left/right reporting on the same subject, and then tease out the middle that works for me. At least in the far-leaning reports you know the direction and can infer appropriately. Also the far-leaning reports often have very interesting tidbits that get culled out of the more center-leaning reports.
Truth is individual.
1 Like
Do you guys think this bill has any chance of passing? Will these senators cave to pressure from fellow senators?
I don’t think anyone can be completely ‘neutral’ and I don’t think that’s a problem as long as journalists are honest about their biases.
Truth is individual
Gotta say I fundamentally disagree with that statement. Truth may be fundamentally unknowable on some level but I do not think it is “individual.” I firmly believe there is an objective truth; it’s just really hard to know what it is. And when you’re talking predictions, then of course there are predictions that have a greater likelihood of being borne out and those that don’t. But that’s no excuse to use predictions that essentially haven’t even been sourced in basic evidence, or take anyone’s slant and just say “well that’s just their two cents.” Here is a truth: If my son doesn’t get insulin, he dies. That’s not a subjective or individual truth, it’s just the way things are.
I agree that it’s frustrating to read ostensibly non-biased reporting and feel like you don’t know what the personal slant of the writer is. I guess as you get better at reading news (or just spend more time writing it) you start to see the places where certain choices were made that give you some clues. At least, that’s the case for me.
On the whole though, I still prefer reading this type of news because of their sourcing. The fact is that far-left/far right sources often just lie – they are writing myth and narratives. They don’t do original reporting – they are relying on these shoe leather reporters who are out there actually getting the quotes, reading the documents, and calling up the experts. So ultimately you’re getting a slanted, second-hand version of the game of telephone in the most biased news sources. I also sort of object to their attempts to inflame everyone.
1 Like
you know, a month or two ago I would have said “no way.” But after seeing the health care bill pass the house, and how utterly draconian it is, and how Republicans seem to be in some feverish state to get this passed, I suspect they will be able to pass something.
The scary part is that the four senators coming out as a no are objecting on conservative grounds: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. Four is enough to scuttle the bill.
On the flip side, I’d say there are 2 senators who I suspect might be willing to vote no on the bill – Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. But they could safely vote no and have Pence be the tiebreaker. I think the other “moderates” could be appeased by a few pork-sweeteners in the bill that play to their particular constituents.
I don’t think anyone can be completely ‘neutral’ and I don’t think that’s a problem as long as journalists are honest about their biases.
I agree with this, although I’ll say it can be hard for people to recognize their own biases and also that as news writers we’re taught not to inject ourselves into a story. I’ve wanted, many a times, to just state some personal or autobiographical fact in an article to let readers know where I’m coming from. those types of details always get nixed. We’re not even really allowed to use things like “we” or “our” when referring to conditions applicable to all of humanity – we’re supposed to use 3rd person.
I prefer reading scientific literature. There the truth is in the reproducibility. Politics seems to have much less “truthiness”, as a left leaning comic said, than other areas.
I lost respect for truth in politics when a former president called into question the meaning of “is”
2 Likes
Lol the congress themselves didn’t even read the ACA before they passed it… likely because it had become essentially completely incomprehensible by the point hey actually could vote on it. I propose that congressional bills be limited to 50 pages.
@Sam You’re definitely on the right track, but 50 pages is too long. And bills should be single issue items. It is absurd that a highway bill should have funding for a Cowboy Poetry Festival attached to it.
1 Like
well, politics allows for more untruthfulness simply because it’s a very complicated system. You may have some hypothesis (policy affects Y in Z ways) but there are so many variables and mitigating circumstances that anyone can find ways to spin it to their liking after the fact (when the prediction does or doesn’t come true).
Also, unfortunately there’s no peer review system with news or with politics – should we have Sweden or Yemen analyze our policies and then find fault with them?
And as awesome as it is to read the primary journal articles in science, the reality is that most people can’t access most of those, and sometimes the implications of those studies aren’t really spelled out in a way most people could understand.
Or that because of the ‘Affordable care act’ we now have to file an IRS form 1099 every time we buy or sell a gold coin
I’m not necessarily a fan of the bills being debated in congress currently either, but you’re kidding yourself if you think the lack of cooperation between parties was spawned entirely by republicans…
@ClaudnDaye Ok. You believe that President Trump is a madman and is out to screw the country. I believe that President Trump is an honest businessman who had the best interests of the country at heart and wants everyone to succeed.
Which is the absolute truth? Nothing more, nothing less?
I’m saying I think they’re headed in the wrong direction currently now too, just as I thought when he ACA was being introduced.
There is no doubt in my mind however that the reason democrats aren’t being allowed to participate much in the process is because of how republicans were treated during the past 8 years
I believe that if you define the terms madman and honest businessman, and then locked you and @ClaudnDaye alone in a room for several days with a bunch of financial documents from Trump’s business holdings, as well as a bunch of other documents (quotes from the man himself, statements from other government officials, statistics from government reports) you could probably come to a much closer consensus than you have now on the matter. 
@ClaudnDaye I rest my case.
1 Like
Hey folks so apparently I listed this topic wrong and it was supposed to be under the “Politics” tag. Anyways, I’m reposting the text of the bill as a standalone topic and leaving this for discussion of the topic.
Well I think that @Michel wanted politics off the main page, which is where the politics thread goes, but then it seems worthy to have folks actually be able to read the text of the bill if they want. So that’s why i’m going to repost the bill itself.
1 Like
I believe the same exact thing could be said for Hillary Clinton… although we’d have to say woman instead of man… unless we are being gender neutral/ gender fluid etc