Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
D... you have to admit that comparing it to Disney is the worst comparison ever.
It's minimizes the wait times scandal and does give an awful appearance that nothing is being done.
Maybe it's time for the VA could introduce Fastpasses?
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
D... you have to admit that comparing it to Disney is the worst comparison ever.
Oh, I agree fully with you on that. I don't ever think "happiest place on earth" when I pull into the parking lot
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/23 18:44:25
Frazzled wrote: VA wait times are not measured in hours, but weeks or months.
And waiting weeks won't automatically kill you, so who get's the appointment at 2 weeks vs 3 weeks: the guy with back pain or the guy with progressive leg weakness?
Waiting months: that's what Veterans Choice is for, and see my previous comment about my thoughts on Veterans Choice.
If they don't keep track of wait times they have no clue how long the waits are. if they are intentionally committing fraud and hiding the wait times or two different lists (as were being done at multiple hospitals) to avoid looking bad at internal audits, then its a serious issue.
Fire him. Fire everyone who works for him, and everyone who worked for them. Give the new crew three months to get this fixed of they are fired. Wash rinse repeat until the problem is solved.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
If they don't keep track of wait times they have no clue how long the waits are.
If you ignore the actual headline and read the actual statements, you will find that he didn't say that we shouldn't track wait times. He said that the measure of success shouldn't be based on wait times.
Give the new crew three months to get this fixed of they are fired
That's stupid and you know it, but why propose realistic and constructive options when you can just angrily hit buttons on a keyboard.
But there is no point arguing with Frazzled, you will just get internet tough guy talk followed by "I'm old and my dog is old, we fixed dinosaur healthcare in 3 months or less and we didn't even invent fire yet".
Why is that stupid? Thats called what happens in the Real World (TM)
But there is no point arguing with Frazzled, you will just get internet tough guy talk followed by "I'm old and my dog is old, we fixed dinosaur healthcare in 3 months or less and we didn't even invent fire yet".
I sense hostility for no clear reason.
You are partially right. We did fix health care. If you were sick the hyenadons would catch you. Frazzled Pro-tip, always have sick friend you not care too much about...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/23 19:33:19
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Why is that stupid? Thats called what happens in the Real World (TM)
Because switching your contractor every three months when they miss a deadline which is pretty unrealistic is a terrible way to actually make any progress?
You will just continue to piss away money by throwing it at different contractors who are starting over every three months.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
No not switch contractor. Ok that does sound weird.
Not switch contractor, fire the executive management of the VA until the problems start being fixed.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: Useless poll result for two obvious reasons.
1) It's 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent, and any person not interested in generating clicks and revenue would tell you that it's a tie.
2) National polls have about as much meaning as a poll of users in the OT section of Dakka Dakka. Unless we suddenly switched to a national popular vote for president, it's pointless to conduct them and even more pointless to even take them into consideration. Just take a look at actual results and you will quickly notice that national results don't match up with actual electoral college results:
What poll are you referring to? Because the article I posted references RCP's polling average, which looks at more than one, and it's in that that he's pulled ahead.
d-usa wrote: Useless poll result for two obvious reasons.
1) It's 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent, and any person not interested in generating clicks and revenue would tell you that it's a tie.
2) National polls have about as much meaning as a poll of users in the OT section of Dakka Dakka. Unless we suddenly switched to a national popular vote for president, it's pointless to conduct them and even more pointless to even take them into consideration. Just take a look at actual results and you will quickly notice that national results don't match up with actual electoral college results:
What poll are you referring to? Because the article I posted references RCP's polling average, which looks at more than one, and it's in that that he's pulled ahead.
The RCP's polling average:
On the strength of two polls released Sunday, the presumptive Republican nominee holds an advantage of 43.4 percent to 43.2 percent in the Real Clear Politics average.
This is an interesting piece on the Sanders voting base. They make the point that while people have been quick to assume Trump's support must come from anger, the votes for Sanders are assumed to be because his policies have struck a chord with voters. But that isn't really true.
They point out this is shown clearly in the voting numbers for Clinton vs Sanders;
"Mr. Sanders did just nine points better, on average, among liberals than he did among moderates. By comparison, he did 11 points worse among women than among men, 18 points worse among nonwhites than among whites and 28 points worse among those who identified as Democrats than among independents.
It is very hard to point to differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’s proposed policies that could plausibly account for such substantial cleavages. They are reflections of social identities, symbolic commitments and partisan loyalties."
The article then goes on to look at Democratic voters, and how the young differ from the old. It notes a very strange thing, while young voters overwhelming favour Sanders over Clinton, "young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences."
So they love Sanders, but actually they actually like the issues he champions less than the older voters that Sanders has struggled to capture. This is because Sanders voters are drawn more by the narrative than the policy reality - they love the idea of the revolutionary candidate who's going to tear up Washington, the grumpy old guy who just says it as it is.
This isn't just a Sanders thing - truth is hardly anyone votes based on weighing up policy positions. It's about tribal identity, and proving what sort of person you are. But it is interesting to me how this explanation was immediately used to explain Trump's popularity, 'oh it's just angry white men', but not used with anyone else running in either campaign. Why were Rubio and Kasich more popular among the moderate wing of their party, what they proposed was as radical as anyone else in the Republican race? Why do women and non-white voters favour Clinton over Sanders - there's nothing in her policies to make it so.
And to extend it to what we've seen in the Democratic debate, why were so many people so hostile when I pointed out that Clinton is about as liberal as Sanders - that their voting records are almost exactly the same? How much of politics is projecting is as simple and as irrational as seeing a candidate who presents in a way you find appealing?
Hillary hasn't formally won yet (the convention bounce) nor has she had the opportunity to get the Bernie Bro's back on her wagon.
Yep, right now Clinton is fighting a war on two fronts, one against the right and one against the left. Polling right now is quite meaningless, because Trump's race is over and the party is consolidating around him, meanwhile the Democratic primary is more heated than ever.
This doesn't mean Sanders voters can be assumed to rally around Clinton, of course. I don't think anyone, including Sanders knows exactly what's going to happen there. But the point is that conditions in May will not be the conditions in November. There's a lot of water to pass under the bridge between then and now, not just changing political circumstances but also the potential for any number of events that could impact the race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: Do you usually refer to the average of multiple poll results as 'the poll result'?
The effectiveness of 538 is forecasting the last few elections has shown that polling averages are a much stronger indicator that looking at any single poll.
Anyway, what's important about it isn't that Trump's taken the lead, it's that his unfavorables have started to go down.
Republicans rallying around the flag. It wasn't a certain outcome, but it was always more likely than not, and not seeing it happen wasn't the reason Clinton was the much more likely winner.
Remember, in presidential elections don't look at the Republican votes, look at the Democrats. The question in presidential elections is generally answered by whether the Democrats turned up to vote.
On that front Democrats have one problem, because Clinton is still just a terrible campaigner, she makes Kerry seem exciting. But they also have one strength, because so far the only strategy effectively employed by Trump has been to rally angry white men by complaining about everyone who isn't an angry white man - if he maintains that strategy it is very likely to drive up Democrat numbers.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/05/24 01:05:09
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The effectiveness of 538 is forecasting the last few elections has shown that polling averages are a much stronger indicator that looking at any single poll.
I'm aware. It's why I linked an article discussing Trump pulling ahead in the averages. d usa responded pooh-poohing the poll result, which is why I asked that question, as I thought he hadn't actually read what was linked and failed to understand we were talking about an average, not one single poll.
On that front Democrats have one problem, because Clinton is still just a terrible campaigner, she makes Kerry seem exciting. But they also have one strength, because so far the only strategy effectively employed by Trump has been to rally angry white men by complaining about everyone who isn't an angry white man - if he maintains that strategy it is very likely to drive up Democrat numbers.
Considering that's also the base of support for the Sandernistas, I wouldn't be too sure.
The margin of error on a poll is always a few percent. Even if you aggregate several polls this remains true.
Thus the 43.2 to 43.1 in favour of Trumpo could actually be 4% in favour of Clinton that has got written down by the error factor. (Deduct average 2.5% from Trump's poll, and add 2.5% to Clinton's)
This is why a poll margin of 0.1% is basically meaningless.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/24 05:41:13
Seaward wrote: I'm aware. It's why I linked an article discussing Trump pulling ahead in the averages. d usa responded pooh-poohing the poll result, which is why I asked that question, as I thought he hadn't actually read what was linked and failed to understand we were talking about an average, not one single poll.
Fair enough.
Considering that's also the base of support for the Sandernistas, I wouldn't be too sure.
Very different set of angry white guys though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Seaward, you are intelligent and well educated enough to be aware that the margin of error on a poll is always a few percent.
Thus the 43.2 to 43.1 in favour of Trumpo could actually be 4% in favour of Clinton that has got written down by the error factor. (Deduct average 2.5% from Trump's poll, and add 2.5% to Clinton's)
This is why a poll margin of 0.1% is basically meaningless.
At this point in the campaign we could be seeing results that are outside the margin of error and it would still be meaningless. Because Trump is benefitting from the consolidation of the Republicans behind him, while the Democratic primary is still going. And even once that's happened, then we'll swap over to talking about convention bumps, and then talking about who 'won' the debates, even though the only people paying attention to any of that stuff are political junkies who already know who they're voting for. And then we'll start talking about every other thing that'll happen in the next six months.
The actual campaigns haven't even started yet.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/24 05:49:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kilkrazy wrote: This is why a poll margin of 0.1% is basically meaningless.
An aggregate upward trend of poll averages across time isn't meaningless. It's certainly not indicative of a likely outcome in November, but it's not without meaning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/24 05:56:21
whembly wrote: Unless, of course, you believe Trump is trying to get into a poo-fling war with the Clinton campaign. 'Cuz... ya know, Trump excels in flinging poo.
Florida’s 23rd District contest is just one of many that Sanders, and his much-in-demand email list, will be turning their attention toward. “In the days ahead,” the campaign’s fundraising pitch for Canova read, “we’re going to add a dozen or more additional candidates to that list.” The fundraising model of broad-based small donations Sanders has mastered, and the credibility he’s built up among his supporters, can be weaponized to turn a House primary into a contest overnight. All Bernie has to do is point.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
He's not acting like it at the moment... which is tragic because it looks like he and his campaign is on to something...
Keep in mind that Bernie is making serious bank, and he's looking to make a near-term impact... not necessarily to laydown some foundation that may take a few years to materialize.
With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
d-usa wrote: With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??
'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
It would be an interesting choice for them. Would they go for Johnson whose economic stance aligns very well with Conservatives, even if his social agenda is the exact opposite of what conservatives want?
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
It would be an interesting choice for them. Would they go for Johnson whose economic stance aligns very well with Conservatives, even if his social agenda is the exact opposite of what conservatives want?
Possibly... and I'd wager conservatives would be okay with that as the President can't really push a social agenda w/o a compliant Congress. I guess, it depends on if the GOP retains the house next session (Senate is going to Democrats for sure). If the GOP holds the House, then I could see them picking Johnson. If the Democrats holds both houses... then I can see them picking Trump to play the "pox on your house" role.
d-usa wrote: With a lot of the polls focusing on Trump vs Hillary, the numbers that might merit more attention as we get closer to November will be Trump vs Hillary vs Johnson.
The real question is this... does Johnson syphon off more #NeverTrump or #BernieBros??
'Cuz, I have no bloody clue.
Hypothetical... if neither Clinton nor Trump gets to 270EV... does the Republican Congress really picks Trump, when they can probably control the agenda better with Johnson at the helm?
Only if they want to commit political suicide. If they don't choose the one with the highest EC/Popular vote count, there will a shitstorm to end all shitstorms. Espcially if the D's can capture the Senate, or even the House.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
A little history of Trump believing, or saying, crazy things:
- Hillary was involved in Vince Foster's suicide
- Obama was born in Kenya
- vaccines cause autism
- thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11
- Ted Cruz father was involved in JFK's assassination
Automatically Appended Next Post: To go back to the VA wait time problem.
This seems like a good approach, and I'm hoping it works out and spreads:
Struggling with long wait times, the Veterans Affairs Health Care System is trying something new: a partnership with the CVS Pharmacy chain to offer urgent care services to more than 65,000 veterans.
The experiment began Tuesday at the VA's operations in Palo Alto, Calif.
Veterans can visit 14 CVS MinuteClinics in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento, where the staff will treat them for conditions such as respiratory infections, order lab tests and prescribe medications that can be filled at CVS pharmacies.
The care will be free for veterans, and the VA will reimburse CVS for the treatment and medications. Whether the partnership will spread to other VA locales isn't yet clear.
The collaboration comes amid renewed scrutiny of the nation's troubled VA health system, which has tried without much success to improve long wait times for veterans needing health care.
...
(More at the link)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/25 01:09:48
fixed of they are fired. Wash rinse repeat until the problem is solved.
