• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is JAMA publishing a scientific study Obama?

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
13,218
Reaction score
4,275
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well the question in the OP is rhetorical. It' s because JAMA is being run by liberals. JAMA isn't at over the top liberal as the scientific journals like NAture, and the scientific organizations like the AAS,but it's pretty obvious they are.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated before, a kid could make a fortune selling Hillary : fightin for us bumper stickers in the NAture ( and apparently JAMA) parking lot.

Obama is not a scientist. JAMA shouldn't pretend he is - LA Times

"...r more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the [Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”


It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook definition of conflict of interest."

Liberals: making decent people vomit for decades.LOL
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,518
Reaction score
34,840
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"...r more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the [Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”

Author doesn't like Obama, so Obama is wrong to like himself?
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
55,446
Reaction score
20,408
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well the question in the OP is rhetorical. It' s because JAMA is being run by liberals. JAMA isn't at over the top liberal as the scientific journals like NAture, and the scientific organizations like the AAS,but it's pretty obvious they are.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated before, a kid could make a fortune selling Hillary : fightin for us bumper stickers in the NAture ( and apparently JAMA) parking lot.

Obama is not a scientist. JAMA shouldn't pretend he is - LA Times

"...r more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the [Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”


It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook definition of conflict of interest."

Liberals: making decent people vomit for decades.LOL

Except that no one is pretending anything, Obama's contribution was a "special communications article" and not a "scientific paper". JAMA does not restrict their publication to only scientific papers.

The article by President Obama was treated in the same fashion as other Special Communication articles, including undergoing rigorous internal review, two revisions of the manuscript, and subsequent modifications during the editing process as the revised manuscript was reviewed again by the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor," Michalski wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/11/the-latest-medical-journal-study-of-obamacare-is-by-president-obama/
 
Last edited:

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Except Obama's contribution was a "special communications article" and not a "scientific paper".

I can see why this would be in there he is the President that implemented ACA and that effects members of the JAMA. It is relevant to get his opinion on how it has effected healthcare in the country.

... but it is his opinion.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
55,446
Reaction score
20,408
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I can see why this would be in there he is the President that implemented ACA and that effects members of the JAMA. It is relevant to get his opinion on how it has effected healthcare in the country.

... but it is his opinion.

He does back his opinions up with facts but I think it is obvious that he would be biased. One thing is undeniable....more Americans have HC coverage than before the ACA. Those that want to repeal it would have to deal with that fact.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
He does back his opinions up with facts but I think it is obvious that he would be biased. One thing is undeniable....more Americans have HC coverage than before the ACA. Those that want to repeal it would have to deal with that fact.

That is a bit dishonest, more Americans my have catastrophic insurance I suppose. I don't see it being repealed, but it could be overhauled. Trump has said in the past he supports universal healthcare, this is something sorely missing from the ACA.
 
Last edited:

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
55,446
Reaction score
20,408
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
That is a bit dishonest, more Americans my have catastrophic insurance I suppose. I don't see it being repealed, but it could be overhauled. Trump has said in the past he supports universal healthcare, this is something sorely missing from the ACA.

Hillary now supports adding the "public option" to the ACA which is far more plausible than Trump getting universal anything.

Capture.png
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hillary now supports adding the "public option" to the ACA which is far more plausible than Trump getting universal anything.

Like I said more people have "insurance" but most of these added policies have astronomically high deductibles which makes them useless for anything but catastrophic coverage.

In April, when Roger Anderson fell while hiking and hurt his shoulder, he discovered, to his dismay, that simply being insured was not enough. The Andersons’ mid-tier plan, which costs them $875 a month, requires them to meet a $7,000 deductible before insurance payments kick in.

“We can’t afford the Affordable Care Act, quite honestly,” said Cassaundra Anderson, whose family canvassed for Obama in their neighborhood, a Republican stronghold outside Cincinnati. “The intention is great, but there is so much wrong. . . . I’m mad.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...critics-say/eaWZZJNrFhm6vVPDBcdZ0I/story.html

Just as much dishonesty as you can keep your current doctor.

As for public option / universal healthcare I don't think either Hillary or Trump has any advantage on getting it passed although Hillary may try harder and attach more big government solutions to it.
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
13,218
Reaction score
4,275
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
He does back his opinions up with facts but I think it is obvious that he would be biased. One thing is undeniable....more Americans have HC coverage than before the ACA. Those that want to repeal it would have to deal with that fact.

Isn't that an awfully low bar? You pass a law that syas people have to get it and then crow that more people have it?
The real story is how many people still DON't have it it even though it's illegal not .

The solution requires honesty. Obama does not possess that quality.

You can't cover more people, maintain the same level of service and lower costs. Can't do it.

The only way to lower costs under a Gov't approach is to ration care and no pol has the guts to say it.
There is no private approach that makes it readily accessible but no right winger will admit.

In any case where you make it more accessible ,you can't keep up the same level of service, at least in the short run, but no pol has the guts to tell you that.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Isn't that an awfully low bar? You pass a law that syas people have to get it and then crow that more people have it?
The real story is how many people still DON't have it it even though it's illegal not .

The solution requires honesty. Obama does not possess that quality.

You can't cover more people, maintain the same level of service and lower costs. Can't do it.

The only way to lower costs under a Gov't approach is to ration care and no pol has the guts to say it.
There is no private approach that makes it readily accessible but no right winger will admit.

In any case where you make it more accessible ,you can't keep up the same level of service, at least in the short run, but no pol has the guts to tell you that.

Plus what good is insurance you have to buy that has a deductible so high you cant use it anyways? .... after spending 875 dollars a month on it.

The only ones that win with the ACA are the private insurance carriers.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Hillary now supports adding the "public option" to the ACA which is far more plausible than Trump getting universal anything.

Capture.png

Nice graft, but is this the result of people being forced to get insurance who don't think they need it? It's not very clear that this is benefitting people.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well the question in the OP is rhetorical. It' s because JAMA is being run by liberals. JAMA isn't at over the top liberal as the scientific journals like NAture, and the scientific organizations like the AAS,but it's pretty obvious they are.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated before, a kid could make a fortune selling Hillary : fightin for us bumper stickers in the NAture ( and apparently JAMA) parking lot.

Obama is not a scientist. JAMA shouldn't pretend he is - LA Times

"...r more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the [Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”


It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook definition of conflict of interest."

Liberals: making decent people vomit for decades.LOL

JAMA and the AMA both are pretty liberal, so this comes as no surprise. Most doctors have left or won't join the AMA for that reason. The current editor of JAMA is a real piece of work. What a worthless rag it has turned into.

The AMA tried to sell doctors out, but Obama wasn't buying. They tried to offer money to get a seat at the table when the ACA was being written, but they were ignored. The pharm companies and health insurance were the main players.
 

beefheart

You left out a Hoongadoonga
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
41,654
Reaction score
32,123
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well the question in the OP is rhetorical. It' s because JAMA is being run by liberals. JAMA isn't at over the top liberal as the scientific journals like NAture, and the scientific organizations like the AAS,but it's pretty obvious they are.

As I've brilliantly and famously stated before, a kid could make a fortune selling Hillary : fightin for us bumper stickers in the NAture ( and apparently JAMA) parking lot.

Obama is not a scientist. JAMA shouldn't pretend he is - LA Times

"...r more troubling is the president’s tone, which is often self-congratulatory. “I am proud of the policy changes in the [Affordable Care Act],” he writes, “and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible healthcare system.”


It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find another paper in any scientific journal in which a politician was allowed to subjectively analyze his own policy and declare it a success. This is a textbook definition of conflict of interest."

Liberals: making decent people vomit for decades.LOL

Damn, I thought everyone died of Ebola last year.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
15,038
Reaction score
13,446
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Like I said more people have "insurance" but most of these added policies have astronomically high deductibles which makes them useless for anything but catastrophic coverage.

I'm old enough to remember when high-deductible catastrophic coverage was considered the appropriate approach to health insurance by the right.

Wait, that's right now!

While Obamacare tried to sideline consumer-directed health care by placing substantial fines on certain accounts and limiting the use of others, Republicans have long supported expansions to these popular arrangements, especially HSAs. HSAs are tax-advantaged savings accounts, tied to a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), which can be used to pay for certain medical expenses. This insurance arrangement— in which a person is protected against catastrophic expenses, can pay out-of-pocket costs using tax-free dollars, and in turn takes responsibility for day-to-day health care expenses—is an excellent option for consumers. HSAs tied to HDHPs are popular tools that lower costs and empower individuals and families. This type of coverage also helps patients understand the true cost of care, allows them to decide how much to spend, and provides them with the freedom to seek treatment at a place of their choosing.
 
Top Bottom