factsnotfiction-blog1

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Does the economy always do better under Democratic presidents?

This has been posted on several sites as a response to CPAC discussions.  Are there any facts to support this claim?

 I was surprised that there are many facts to support this claim and not many that challenge the claim.

 Looking at

 Gross Domestic Product Growth - economic figures favor Democratic Party

S&P 500 - economic figures favor Democratic Party

Unemployment rate - economic figures favor Democratic Party

Jobs Created by Month - economic figures favor Democratic Party

Personal Income Growth - economic figures favor Democratic Party

US GDP growth VS NATO GDP - economic figures favor Democratic Party

US Debt in Total Dollars - economic figures show debt grows with each new administration regardless of party

US Debt as % of GDP – mixed.  

 The facts are:

 Gross Domestic Product Growth, looking at when Congress and the White House were both in control and split, All Democratic 5.2%, All Republican 1.2% and when divided 2.3%. See the attached pic for a graph.

Stock market performance, reporting only when Congress and the White House were both in control. Democratic growth was 1894%, Republican was 166%.  See the attached pic for a graph.

Unemployment Rate, the data is by president only, not a reflection on Congress.  See the attached pic for details, it shows a dramatic Democratic better rate.  See the attached pic for a graph.

Jobs created by month, the data is by president only, not a reflection on Congress.  See the attached pic for details, it shows a dramatic Democratic better rate.  See the attached pic for a graph.

Personal Income Growth again shows a dramatic Democrat advantage.  See the attached pic for a graph.

One final way you can compare how the parties perform economically is by looking at how the U.S. performed relative to how the economies of other developed countries performed during the same time span, see the attached graph for details.   See the attached pic for a graph.

 Finally debt in which shows that debt grows with each new president, regardless of party affiliation when looking at total debt.  See the attached pic for a graph.

 However when looking as a % of GDP, the data is more mixed.   See the attached pic for a graph.

So what does this mean?  Does it mean that Democrats manage the US economy better?  Maybe but most economist will point out that that presidents do not have a lot of direct control over the economy.

 There is a theory (I stress the word theory as I can neither support nor debunk with facts) that maybe two factors—oil shocks and increases in what's called Total Factor Productivity—as potential reasons.

 Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy.

 As for Total Factor Productivity, this is a measure that economists use to gauge the economic effects of things like improvements in technology, education, and business processes. Democratic presidents were apparently lucky enough to preside over the economy during periods where advances in technology had a huge effect on the economy. The best example of this dynamic is the rise of the Internet during the Clinton administration, when many processes were made more efficient and the economy more productive by the development of that technology.

 Political scientists have shown that the performance of the economy is one of the most important factors for voters when they head to the polls. If the economy is doing well, the incumbent will likely win, and vice versa. However most economic theories state that the president has little effect on the economy. Economic performance is determined by factors that are largely outside the control of public policy, or at least the kind of policy that is directly controlled by the Commander in Chief.

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Sulfites in my red wine gave me a headache.  Fact or Fiction?

Fact or Fiction

 Sulfites in my red wine gave me a headache.  Fact or Fiction?

 I have read and been asked this question, the answer is fiction.  

A lot of people blame allergies to sulfites on their suffering. While that does happen, that is not the cause of red wine headaches. Sulfites are used in almost every wine as a preservative agent. The percentage of sulfites in wine is really quite low. White wines contain between 250 and 450 parts per million of sulfites. Red wine has even less sulfites, with a range of between 50-350 parts per million. The truth is, dried fruit, which is the common, agreed upon litmus test for sulfite allergies contain much higher degrees of sulfites with a range of between 1,000 to 3,000 parts per million. The truth about the amount of sulfites in red wine hen compared to other popular food items is, there are lower levels of sulfites in wine than you experience in most candy, jam, canned soda, packaged meats, canned soup, frozen juice or as we mentioned previously, dried fruit.

While sulfites can bring on typical allergic or asthma symptoms. But they are not the culprit responsible for wine, induced headaches. This is a good thing as close to 1% of the world’s population is allergic to sulfites. So, if it’s not sulfites that cause the famous red wine headache, or RWH, what is it?

It would appear that there are two potential reasons for the red wine headaches. Histamines and Tyramine, both of which are present in all wines are the guilty parties! The simple medical explanation for red wine headaches is, Histamine dilate your blood vessels and bring on the flushing and inflammatory sensations. Tyramine gets credit for two effects. Tyramine is responsible for initially constricting and then dilating your blood vessels causing your blood pressure to rise slightly, just enough to induce a headache.

 It is important to keep in mind the amount of Histamines present in red wine are much more prevalent than those which appear in white wine. That is the reason the condition is referred to as red wine headaches, or RWH. In fact, Histamines in red wine have been measured to be in some cases up to 200% higher in red wine, than what you commonly find in white wine.

While the amount of Histamines measured in wine varies, depending on the grape variety and region, so does the amount of Tryamine. For example, the levels of Tyramine present in Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay are quite low, which is the reverse of what is found in Riesling. Bordeaux , fortunately for me, is also very low when it comes to Tyramine, as are most of the famous Bordeaux, red wine grapes like Cabernet Sauvignon , Merlot and Cabernet Franc .

Histamines and Tyramine are by-products of the fermentation process. Of the two, Histamines seems to bear more of the responsibility for red wine headaches, or RWH. Yes, this is so common, RWH or red wine headaches is how medical professionals refer to the problem. Because Histamines are much stronger in red wine, than white wine or Champagne, the problem is most often referred to as red wine headaches. People who suffer from red wine headaches more often than others can have an enzyme deficiency that does not allow them to metabolize Histamines as well as they would like.

To prevent or cure the red wine headache, drink at least one full, 8 ounce glass of water per glass of wine. Water is your best friend as drinking alcohol can cause dehydration. You can also try taking non drowsy, anti-histamines before drinking wine. Other potential aids for headaches are easily found in your medicine cabinet. Before drinking, try taking an Aspirin, Ibuprofen or Vitamin B6.

 Read more at:http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/wine-topics/wine-educational-questions/red-wine-headaches-cause-solution-prevention-rwh/

  ��,&F�w�`�

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Fact or Fiction – Murder rates in the US

Again we are hearing a number from President Trump, this time concerning the US murder rate. To quote "But the murder rate is the highest it's been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years."

Not knowing what the real rate was, when read his quote. I did some research from over 10 sources, all of which were either identical or very close. For this writing I am using FBI statistics.

To be clear, I am including non-negligent manslaughter and murder. What is non-negligent manslaughter? The basic idea is that manslaughter requires no malice aforethought and a provocation that would lead a reasonable person to become enraged with no cooling off period before the killing.

The classic example is if you come home to see your wife in bed with a stranger and you immediately kill him.

The most recent annual FBI statistics available show the national rate for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in 2015 was 4.9 per 100,000 people. That was lower than every year between 1996 and 2009, when the rate fell from 7.4 killings per 100,000 people to five for the same population. Which is higher than 2013 and 2014. BUT IS THE 3RD LOWEST RATE SINCE 1970!

So is the Trump figure Fact or Fiction. IT IS TOTAL FICTION and since there is no way to statistically get to Trump’s figure, let us call a spade a spade. IT IS A TOTAL LIE!!!

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Are Polls Fake News? Fact or Fiction.

We are seeing the term “Fake News” being used almost every day.  President Trump just tweeted “Any negative polls are fake news'.  Of course that statement is BIG TIME FICTION as it is impossible for any president to not have at least 1 negative poll.   However that is not the point of this Fact or Fiction.  The point of this writing is to explain differences in polls and the typical errors in polls.   Survey errors include:

 Sampling Error

Coverage Error

Measurement Error

Non-Response Error

 What is sampling error?

 Most surveys report margin of error in a manner such as: “the results of this survey are accurate at the 95% confidence level plus or minus 3 percentage points.” That is the error that can result from the process of selecting the sample. It suggests what the upper and lower bounds of the results are.

 For example:

If you had to sort out 200 million jelly beans (the population of US adults) to find how many were red, purple or a different color, you could sort them all or you could sort or a sample, say of 500 randomly selected.  You find

 There are close to 200 million adult U.S. residents. For comparison, let’s say you have a giant jar of 200 million jelly beans. The president has commissioned you to find out how many jelly beans are red, how many are purple, and how many are some other color. Since you have limited funds and time, you opt against counting and sorting all 200 million jelly beans. Instead you randomly select 500 jelly beans of which 30% are red, 10% are purple and 60% are some other color. You find that 30 percent of the jelly beans in the jar are red.  To further elaborate, you can say, with 95% confidence red jelly beans make up 30%, {+/- 4% or the range of 26-34%} of the beans in the jar.  The margin of error is calculated upon the size of your sample, the larger your sample the smaller the margin of error.

 What is coverage error?

In a typical survey of US adults, some groups of people will not have the opportunity to be included, such a military personnel stationed overseas. This is an example of Coverage Error. That’s the error associated with the inability to contact portions of the population. Telephone surveys usually exclude the homeless and institutionalized populations. This error also includes people who are not home at the time of attempted contact because they are on vacation, living abroad, or otherwise unreachable for the period of time the interviewing (with call backs) takes place.

 Non-response Error results from not being able to interview people who would be eligible to take the survey. Many households now use voice mail and caller ID to screen calls; other people simply do not want to respond to calls sometimes because the endless stream of telemarketing appeals make them wary of answering. Non-response bias is the difference in responses of those people who complete the survey vs. those who refuse to for any reason. While the error itself cannot be calculated, response rates can be calculated and there are countless ways to do so.

 What is measurement error?

 Measurement Error is error or bias that occurs when surveys do not survey what they intended to measure. This type of error results from flaws in the instrument, question wording, question order, interviewer error, timing, and question response options, etc. This is perhaps the most common and most problematic collection of errors faced by the polling industry.

 What happens when the final sample doesn’t look like the general public? For example, what if three-quarters of your respondents are over fifty?

 Survey firms apply a technique called weighting to adjust the poll results to account for possible sample biases caused by specific groups of individuals not responding. The weighting uses known estimates of the total population provided by the Census to adjust the final results.

It’s not uncommon to weight data by age, gender, education, race, etc. in order to achieve the correct demographic proportions.

 So what about the polls that showed Hilary was going to win the election?  Actually if read the polls correctly in the electoral states you would have seen the differences we saw were well within the margin of error. The other issue was the predictors that assumed a voter turnout model when using the polling numbers to predict the election.  

For fun below is a recent polling that has very different numbers.  Note the mode being used, a classic example of “Measurement Error”.    

sty�h3grƶ

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Quotes that never happened

We all repeat quotes in fun or to make a point.  Have we ever check to see if quote was accurate?  Here are corrected quotes.  The following are historical quotes I will follow up with another one focused on TV and the movies.

 “Let them eat cake.” - Marie Antoinette

The full quote goes: “If they have no bread, let them eat cake.” However, neither of them are right – because Marie Antoinette never said it. The quote was used to indicate the decadence of Versailles and the royals and was anti-monarchist propaganda used by opponents to discredit them as rules of “the people.” The “cake” line comes from Jean-Jacques Rosseau’s Confessions: “I recalled the make-shift of a great princess who was told that the peasants had no bread and who replied: ‘Let them eat brioche’.”

 "Anything That Can Go Wrong, Will Go Wrong" - Edward Murphy

The creator of Murphy's Law meant exactly what this quote says when he came up with his theory, but he never actually used the phrase himself.  Instead, "anything that can go wrong, will go wrong" is a phrase coined by others to summarize his theory.  Murphy's far less sexy way of putting it was: "If there's more than one way to do a job, and one of those ways will result in disaster, then somebody will do it that way."

 "I Invented The Internet" - Al Gore

Bill Clinton's Vice-President Al Gore turned into a laughing stock in the early 2000s when it was widely reported that he claimed: "I invented the internet."

What Al Gore actually said was: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

 His claims may have been blown out of proportion, and his choice of phrase extremely poor, but Al Gore did contribute to forcing through early support for the internet - and was even honored in 2005 with a lifetime-achievement Webby award

 "The Ends Justify The Means" - Niccolò Machiavelli

Author of the 16th-Century Classic The Prince, Machiavelli may have created his own type of villain - but he never uttered the phrase with which he has become synonymous.

Machiavelli actually said "one must consider the final result", but his quote has been polished to give it a far more liberal interpretation

 “There’s a sucker born every minute. - P.T. Barnum

This phrase is commonly attributed to P.T. Barnum, as an indication of his cynicism about his own work, the way he was able to dupe people into paying for crap. But it was never said by Barnum. One of Barnum’s competitors used it to describe the famous showman’s exhibits, and it just kind of stuck.

�

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?

I was asked if I could find any information on unemployment rates as there are a variety of reported numbers. So I present another Fact not Fiction.

What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?

What is fact and what is fiction? The first step is to agree on the definition of the unemployment as there are actually several different calculated and recognized rates.

The typical reported rate (U-3), reported by Obama, Clinton, and both Bush’s, but not the number reported by the current administration. In the (U-3) rate, only those who have looked for a job in the past four weeks as unemployed. They're included in the labor force because their jobless situation is only temporary. Once they haven't looked for a job in the past four weeks are no longer counted as unemployed or in the labor force. The BLS adds them to a group it calls the marginally attached.

So is the U-3 fact or fiction? Technically it is fact, but it is clearly misleading so it is an example of why we as consumers of the information need to check the facts.

There are other unemployment rates that are not typically reported which provide more accurate information on a “true” unemployment rate. The steps are: (using 2016 December numbers)

U-3 = 7.529 million unemployed workers / 159.640 million in the labor force = 4.7 percent.

Add in marginally attached workers: There were 1.684 million people who were marginally attached to the labor force. Add this to both the number of unemployed and the labor force.

U-5 = 9.213 million / 161.324 million = 5.7 percent.

Add in part-time workers: There were 5.598 million people who were working part-time because they couldn't get full-time work, although they'd prefer it. Add them to the unemployed, they're already in the labor force.

U-6 = 14.811 million / 161.324 million = 9. 2 percent. (Source: "Table A-15," Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

So what is the 42% number reported by Donald Trump? That figure is the number of people over 16 that are not working. Not working for any reason, so it includes; every retiree, every college student, everyone who is unable to work because of a disability and every parent who voluntarily stays at home to raise a child. It also includes every drifters and others that are not seeking employment either. So is the number Mr. Trump is reporting fact or fiction? It is Fiction as it is a number of people not working which is NOT the same as unemployed.

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

What Is the Real Unemployment Rate?

What is fact and what is fiction.  The first step is to agree on the definition of the unemployment as there are actually several different calculated and recognized rates.

The typical reported rate (U-3), reported by Obama, Clinton, and both Bush’s, but not the number reported by the current administration.  In the (U-3) rate, only those who have looked for a job in the past four weeks as unemployed. They're included in the labor force because their jobless situation is only temporary.  Once they haven't looked for a job in the past four weeks are no longer counted as unemployed or in the labor force.  The BLS adds them to a group it calls the marginally attached.

So is the U-3 fact or fiction?  Technically it is fact, but it is clearly misleading so it is an example of why we as consumers of the information need to check the facts.

There are other unemployment rates that are not typically reported which provide more accurate information on a “true” unemployment rate.   The steps are: (using 2016 December numbers)

U-3 = 7.529 million unemployed workers / 159.640 million in the labor force = 4.7 percent.

 Add in marginally attached workers: There were 1.684 million people who were marginally attached to the labor force. Add this to both the number of unemployed and the labor force.

 U-5 = 9.213 million / 161.324 million = 5.7 percent.

 Add in part-time workers: There were 5.598 million people who were working part-time because they couldn't get full-time work, although they'd prefer it. Add them to the unemployed, they're already in the labor force.

 U-6 = 14.811 million / 161.324 million = 9. 2 percent. (Source: "Table A-15," Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

 So what is the 42% number reported by Donald Trump?  That figure is the number of people over 16 that are not working.  Not working for any reason, so it includes; every retiree, every college student, everyone who is unable to work because of a disability and every parent who voluntarily stays at home to raise a child.  It also includes every drifters and others that are not seeking employment either.  So is the number Mr. Trump is reporting fact or fiction? It is Fiction as it is a number of people not working which is NOT the same as unemployed.  

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Does Caffeine Really Dehydrate You?

Caffeine — found in coffee, tea, soda and even chocolate — is the most widely consumed psychoactive substance on the planet. Used predominantly as a means to perk people up, the stimulant is legal and unregulated in most parts of the world. However, it's commonly thought that caffeine is responsible for some undesirable side effects, including dehydration.

The idea that caffeine can cause dehydration can be traced to a study performed in 1928 that noted increased urination in people who drank caffeinated beverages, and suggested that caffeine was a diuretic, according to Lawrence Armstrong, a professor in the Department of Kinesiology at the University of Connecticut and director of the Human Performance Laboratory. The idea spread, and caffeine's reputation as a dehydrating substance was solidified.

 In 2005, a team of researchers set out to put the myth to rest. They controlled the diets of 59 healthy males for 11 days, supplementing their daily consumption with body-mass-appropriate doses of caffeine, administered twice a day via capsule. Throughout the study, the researchers employed 20 different hydration biomarkers, such as urine volume and fluid-electrolyte balance, to assess dehydration.

 While previous studies had investigated the effects of caffeine over short periods of time, this research was the first to evaluate caffeine consumption for a continuous period longer than 24 hours.

 The study found that the evaluated hydration indicators, including urine volume, were similar for all of the treatment groups. This finding demonstrates that caffeine does not have a dehydrating effect when compared to the control group (participants who received a placebo and did not consume any caffeine). The scientists also found that a higher dose of caffeine was no more likely to dehydrate a person than smaller doses were.

 According to a 2016 investigation conducted by the University of Washington's Center for Public Health Nutrition, coffee remains the most significant source of caffeine in American diets. Though it doesn't cause dehydration, the stimulant has its share of purported side effects, including rumors that it may stunt people's growth or cause cancer. However, scientific research so far has not supported the idea that caffeine is bad for you, either.

 "The fact that we don't have hospital emergency rooms filled [with patients] because they [drank] caffeinated beverages is clear evidence ... If there were negative health effects, [they] certainly would have been identified," [10 Interesting Facts About Caffeine]

 It is possible to consume too much caffeine, yes, the lethal dose is about 10,000 milligrams in a day. To put that number into perspective, the Mayo Clinic reports that an 8-ounce cup of coffee contains about 95 milligrams of caffeine. So, in order to overdose, you'd have to drink more than 100 cups of coffee in a day.

 In fact, some scientific studies show that coffee actually has a number of health benefits.

 "There's a lot more in a coffee bean than caffeine," Armstrong said. "The highest antioxidant intake among adults in America comes from coffee."

Research suggests that ingredients in coffee can protect against liver cancer, prevent the development of type 2 diabetes, lower blood pressure, and even combat dementia and depression, Science News reported.

 Concerns about excessive caffeine consumption, particularly in children and adolescents, as well as harmful interactions with other drugs such as alcohol, require further research. But as it stands, your daily cup of joe isn't going to dehydrate you, and it might just have some added health benefits while getting you through your morning.

 http://www.livescience.com/55479-does-caffeine-cause-dehydration.html  

MZ�E�

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Global Warming - Yes It Is Real

Let me be clear I am stating that Global Temps are on the rise as fact, because we have data that clearly shows that to be the case.  I am not discussing the causes and if people need to change behaviors.  We can discuss if it is a temporary cycle, how much man has contributed and if we should be doing something to affect changes, however that is not what I am presenting as fact.  While it seems obvious that we do have at least some effect on the warming, that remains a theory as there are interpretations of the data.

The global average temperature is not something that is open to interpretations, in that I think we all accept the fact that 2 is greater than 1.  

So if it is fact and not fiction then why all the talk about that Global Warming is a hoax and not fact.

Several reasons:The argument over causes, getting stuck on whether the cause is man or something else, and not acknowledging that it is occurring and then debating man’s affect.

Not understanding the difference between weather, local climate and global climates, remember this is Global Warming, a warm winter in Minnesota (I used to live there) does not reflect the overall average Global temperature.

Bad for business, I worked many years for a large oil company and can tell you first hand they and many other companies have a financial incentives to not acknowledge global warming.  Of course these companies have powerful lobbyist and influence.

1998, for people motivated to discredit the science, 1998 provided a flawed piece of data.  It has been stated that global temps peaked in 1998 and have been falling since.  In 1998 the average temp jumped up to .63C from .47C in 1997 then dropped to .42C in 1999 and 2000.  So a 2 year trend was noted.  However, since 2000 the temp has risen to a 2014 .74C temp, the highest ever recorded. Skeptics point to the 2 year trend and leave out the past 15 years since.

Human nature, when faced with information that produces an uncomfortable state of having inconsistent thoughts or beliefs and these inconsistencies suggest we should change our behavior, we will typically change our beliefs to regain a sense of harmony rather than change our behavior.  I am guilty of this, No I am not gaining weight, if I acknowledge that then I may have exercise more, or drink less wine.

This article “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: has a accurate response to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming”    http://grist.org/series/skeptics/   If you are a skeptic open it up, find your argument and will see how that argument is based on incorrect data.  Again let’s be clear the fact I am presenting is just that Global Temps are on the rise, not the causes.

Ok so let’s review the data. Oh, but what data sources there are many all reliable sources say the same thing.  Since a recent poll from the Pew Report indicates the two most trusted institutions in the country are medical scientists and the military—about four in five Americans have at least a fair amount of confidence that both serve the public interest.  I am going to present NASA’s data. Not exactly a military institution, but one that has no real reason to skew and misrepresent data and of course they have very smart people working there.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Global Temperature

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record.

(mP�s���

Arctic Sea Ice

Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13.3 percent per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.

Land Ice

Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year.

�s��/

Of course the above data in geological perspective is just a blip.  How do we not know we are just in a small blip occurring over the last few decades?  The following 2 data points will address and debunk that theory.

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting land ice and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The chart, derived from coastal tide gauge data, shows how much sea level changed from about 1870 to 2000, a data range over 130 years.

�sF]`

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, the chart shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores. This provides a dataset that spans thousands of years.  Note the rise that corresponds to previous charts showing temps rising since 1950.

w�s��`

But wait!  How does CO2 relate to Global temps? As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments.  We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall).  Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

DUH, that is how a window works.  Why does a double pane window keep you’re your house warmer. Same exact science.  Glass works the same way, the glass lets the shorter wave light through but traps the longer wave heat.  So what increased CO2 does the same thing adds more window panes to our atmosphere.

In closing let’s review, the data presented is not theory or proposals they show measured and confirmed data points.  We can argue if it is a temporary cycle, how much man has contributed and if we should be doing something to affect changes.  As much as many want to deny the scientific reality is that our global temp is rising.  

x4Yγs{��

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

McDonald’s Hot Coffee – the real fact not the fiction

This story has become an example (and assumed fact) across the nation of a judicial overreach and greed. A woman, driving in her car while holding McDonald's coffee between her legs, spills some of the coffee on herself. Inflicted with some minor burns, she sues McDonald's, as if she shouldn't have known that coffee is hot and driving with it in your hand or legs is dangerous. And then she ultimately wins millions of dollars from the fast food chain — becoming rich due to a dumb mistake that was all on her.

However all of the above is fiction, the facts are:

Stella Liebeck was a 79-year-old woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose grandson drove her to McDonald's in 1992. She was in a parked car when the coffee spilled.

Liebeck acknowledged that the spill was her fault. What she took issue with was that the coffee was so ridiculously hot — at up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit, near boiling point — that it caused third-degree burns on her legs and genitals which required surgery to treat.

McDonald's was aware of the danger before the incident happened.  In the decade before Liebeck's spill, McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burning themselves. There are documents that show that McDonald's management knew that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald's policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald's claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.)

Liebeck didn't want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald's to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald's only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994.

After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald's handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald's began changing how it heats up its coffee.

Big call out the Adam Ruins Everything site and Deborah Grieser for the site recommendation.

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

TrumpNationRDR123

Yea right, just more media generated nonsense, same as the so called unemployment rate, voter fraud that happened and all the other left bull sh*#t

[factsnotfiction-blog1]

Heath care and why the preexisting condition provision is the key to our health plan design and BTW the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare are the same thing

So why start my blog and Facts Not Fiction on something that smacks of political posturing?  Several reasons, the first being to illustrate laws/facts of economics do exist, same as laws/facts of science.  This is an example of economic laws, how one economic step leads to another.  The other reasons is to demonstrate validity in my writings.  I am assuming that the Affordable Care Act will be replaced soon and if does have the preexisting provision then we will see that this writing was accurate. 

To start with, lets us clarify the Affordable Care Act and ObamaCare are the same thing.  Why do I have to say that?  Because a recent poll showed that 30% of respondents didn’t know what the Affordable Care Act is — while “only” 12% didn’t know what ObamaCare is, What?  How is that possible they are the same thing.  Then there is this guy 

and this guy

Yes News Flash they are the same thing. 

So why is the cannot deny coverage because of preexisting condition provision so important? 

So assuming President Trump and congress keep; cannot deny coverage because of preexisting condition provision.  So if you have an illness the insurers are required to sell you insurance anyway. So what if did have an illness say one that would cost $50,000 year why wouldn’t the insurance companies just sell you a policy for $50,000 year? 

Because of what is called “guaranteed issue at community rates.”   Sounds good again and makes sense, that is how insurance works.  We all pay in, hope we don’t need to use the service, those that do need the service typically pull out more than they put in, but it works because the rest of us who don’t file claims cover that cost. 

Unfortunately for healthcare that model does not work.  The states that have tried guaranteed issues at community rates, the markets have collapsed. That’s because if you guarantee everyone the right to buy health insurance at community rates, some consumers game the system. The young and healthy don’t buy any health insurance at all — they go without until they are diagnosed with an illness. And when that happens, they call up Aetna or Anthem and exercise their right to buy health insurance at the low community rate, irrespective of their medical condition. 

It was not long before the insurance companies began losing money and were forced either to raise premiums or stop writing policies altogether, which is what many did.   This was noted by President Trump as one of reasons to replace the current system. 

So how do you prevent that kind of gaming of the system by consumers? Well, that’s easy. You require that everyone buy some minimal level of insurance at the beginning of every year, so they can’t buy insurance only after they get sick. An” individual mandate.” This is why you are asked if you have insurance on your tax return and if you do not you pay more in taxes.  Remember the recent Supreme Court decision that said this was legal?  But because you can’t expect poor people to pay $1,000 a month, it requires subsidies to keep their out-of-pocket costs to something like 10 percent of income. 

So let’s review what just happened. To guarantee that people with preexisting conditions can get affordable health insurance, you need to have rules requiring guaranteed issue and community rating. To keep insurance companies in business because of guaranteed issue and community rating, you need to have an individual mandate. And because poor people can’t afford health insurance, you need subsidies. Combine all three, and what you have, in a nutshell, is … the Affordable Care Act. 

REALLY!   Yep!  If we want the cannot deny coverage because of preexisting condition provision, AND have a system that does not eventually fail because of community rates you end up with something that looks like our current system. 

I know many disagree, but FACT are FACTS go through what I said and do your own research.  There are no easy solutions. You can’t have all the good parts of an unregulated insurance market (freedom to buy what you want, when you want, with market pricing) without the bad parts e.g. steadily rising premiums.

At the same time, you can’t have all the good parts of a socialized system (universal coverage at affordable prices) without freedom-reducing mandates and regulations and large doses of subsidies from some people to other people. 

I am not sure what the answer is and I am not proposing a solution.  Hopefully smarter people than me will find an alternative.  I am just laying out the facts of how current health care insurance works, in the U.S. and for that matter every other democratic nation. 

��� ���%O