Please don't even try to pretend that you know 1% as much about how government agencies work as I do.

All it takes is one person in the right position to change things. And all it takes is one person to ignore that happening if it isn't supposed to happen. One person to look the other way, make a change here, drop a line there, add something where it doesn't belong. Every government agency is f***ed up.

Trust no one

Trust no one

If they are getting a government paycheck, at least think twice.

If they are getting a government paycheck, at least think twice.

Maybe we should sell them all guns. That will make them trustworthy.

All it takes is one person in the right position to change things. And all it takes is one person to ignore that happening if it isn't supposed to happen. One person to look the other way, make a change here, drop a line there, add something where it doesn't belong. Every government agency is f***ed up.

 

In most government agencies, including the Census Bureau, if one person changed things, it would take a couple thousand people to look the other way, including me.

 

Some of that aluminum is seeping down into your brain from your tinfoil hat.

 

Again, please don't pretend that you know 1% as much about how it works as I do.

In most government agencies, including the Census Bureau, if one person changed things, it would take a couple thousand people to look the other way, including me.

 

Some of that aluminum is seeping down into your brain from your tinfoil hat.

 

Again, please don't pretend that you know 1% as much about how it works as I do.

I never claimed to know the inner workings, that is something you made me up as saying.

 

And nice to know that is a boss a few levels higher than you comes by and says 'We are making X change, deal with it' that you would fight back, your job and pension be damned! And getting multiple people to look the other way or play Sgt Schultz and 'see nothing' wasn't too hard to do at the IRS. Perhaps the census dept. is a lone island of virtue residing in the government quagmire.

oh you still think issa's joke of an investigation revealed anything actually nefarious

I never claimed to know the inner workings, that is something you made me up as saying.

 

And nice to know that is a boss a few levels higher than you comes by and says 'We are making X change, deal with it' that you would fight back, your job and pension be damned! And getting multiple people to look the other way or play Sgt Schultz and 'see nothing' wasn't too hard to do at the IRS. Perhaps the census dept. is a lone island of virtue residing in the government quagmire.

 

Census Bureau is very different than the IRS. A lot of statisticians move between government, private statistical research, and non-profit research, and their ability to do so would be totally shot if they accepted bogus changes to surveys while with the government. That order isn't coming down the chain to me because one or more people in that chain have professional reputations outside the government to protect.

 

A lot of very wealthy people of both political leanings get/remain very wealthy by using accurate census data, and they aren't about to let politicians mess with it.

Census Bureau is very different than the IRS. A lot of statisticians move between government, private statistical research, and non-profit research, and their ability to do so would be totally shot if they accepted bogus changes to surveys while with the government. That order isn't coming down the chain to me because one or more people in that chain have professional reputations outside the government to protect.

 

A lot of very wealthy people of both political leanings get/remain very wealthy by using accurate census data, and they aren't about to let politicians mess with it.

Regardless of whether the new questions are accurate or have been in the works for years, if they record stats in a different way, the stats will be meaningless as they would be uncomparable to the previous census stats. So whatever it shows, decrease or increase in insurable people, you won't really know.As for their interest in providing correct information, they also produced the labor statistics that were 'cooked' right before the election.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-...on-jobs-report/

In 2012 Obama decided to have the next Census director report to senior White House staffers as well as the commerce secretary. Wonder why?

oh you still think issa's joke of an investigation revealed anything actually nefarious

The fact that you think nothing was going on is funny in itself. Glad you thinnk that what they did was just fine. No complaints from you then when the IRS turns the other way sometime in the future.

hahalolaolhaahalolah

The whole point HH is making is that the reason making changes to the questions is so difficult is because they are ensuring that the new data will be useful and that they'll understand how the change in the question will affect the results compared to the old wording/question/etc.

The whole point HH is making is that the reason making changes to the questions is so difficult is because they are ensuring that the new data will be useful and that they'll understand how the change in the question will affect the results compared to the old wording/question/etc.

But it won't be useful NOW as an indication of things getting better or worse as it is measuring things differently than before. The numbers are destined to be different, even if they were really the same, because they are being reported differently.

The fact that you think nothing was going on is funny in itself. Glad you thinnk that what they did was just fine. No complaints from you then when the IRS turns the other way sometime in the future.

And by "Future" you mean "past" right? Because otherwise you're clearly indicating you have paid no attention to any of the details of that "scandal" whatsoever.

Regardless of whether the new questions are accurate or have been in the works for years, if they record stats in a different way, the stats will be meaningless as they would be uncomparable to the previous census stats. So whatever it shows, decrease or increase in insurable people, you won't really know.As for their interest in providing correct information, they also produced the labor statistics that were 'cooked' right before the election.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-...on-jobs-report/

In 2012 Obama decided to have the next Census director report to senior White House staffers as well as the commerce secretary. Wonder why?

 

Yeah, OK there's another case of people making all kinds of assumptions about a tiny fact that aren't even close to true.

 

This is how the unemployment survey works - There is a monthly sample of 72,000 households. Any given field employee is responsible for about 30-40 of those households, or about 0.05% of the entire sample. Employees (and their bosses) are rated partially on getting a response from as many of their 30-40 households as possible. This sometimes leads employees to fabricate answers for households that refuse to cooperate. However, they aren't doing it to move the unemployment rate one way or the other, rather for their own job welfare. The most common form of fabrication is just to mark an uncooperative household as 'retired' because it brings up fewer questions in the survey. Being retired removes somebody from the labor force, so it has a net neutral effect on unemployment rate, and given that any one employee only has 0.05% of the sample anyway. It would take hundreds of people, all intentionally marking unemployed people as employed, in order to move the unemployment rate that far.

But it won't be useful NOW as an indication of things getting better or worse as it is measuring things differently than before. The numbers are destined to be different, even if they were really the same, because they are being reported differently.

 

Yes, there will be some problems with comparisons, but once you become 100% certain that changing the survey will make it more accurate, you have to do it even though it may make historical comparisons questionable.

 

You don't just keep using inferior data because the old data was inferior.

Hobby Lobby ruling in just now, closely-held corporations can claim RFRA exemptions to regulatory requirements like providing contraception to all employees . Alito wrote the opinion, and the Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control (SCOTUSblog). This ruling is strictly about the contraception requirement and does not necessarily apply to other requirements, such as blood transfusion or vaccination requirements.

 

Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, says the government could just pay for it. edit: comment from SCOTUSblog:

It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog...h.DGYOOnxX.dpuf

 

Breyer and Kagan filed a dissent and Ginsburg filed a separate dissent.

Edited June 30, 201411 yr by StrangeSox

Did Sotomoyor remove herself?

Did Sotomoyor remove herself?

 

She joined on to Ginsburg's dissent. Breyer and Kagan both joined on to her dissent in part, as well.

Edited June 30, 201411 yr by StrangeSox

Hobby Lobby ruling in just now, closely-held corporations can claim RFPA exemptions to regulatory requirements like providing contraception to all employees . Alito wrote the opinion, and the Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control (SCOTUSblog). This ruling is strictly about the contraception requirement and does not necessarily apply to other requirements, such as blood transfusion or vaccination requirements.

 

Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, says the government could just pay for it. edit: comment from SCOTUSblog:

 

 

Breyer and Kagan filed a dissent and Ginsburg filed a separate dissent.

 

Makes sense to me. If the government thinks that anything, in this case low or no cost birth control, is important, then the onus is really on the government to provide it and not to force private companies to subsidize it.

An important point about this ruling is that it applies only to closely-held corporations. Hobby Lobby may be a huge nationwide chain, but it's still owned by one family. A publicly traded company like Walmart couldn't make the same arguments.

 

More on the closely held question: We have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA's applicability to publicly traded corporations . The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations each owned and controlled by members of a single family and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs. - See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog...h.DGYOOnxX.dpuf

Makes sense to me. If the government thinks that anything, in this case low or no cost birth control, is important, then the onus is really on the government to provide it and not to force private companies to subsidize it.

 

That's not what the ruling says. It's specifically that a closely-held corporation has a RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) exemption if they're religiously opposed to contraceptions (though Hobby Lobby was providing them until a few years ago). In order to go around the RFRA objection, the government has to show that there's a legitimate public policy goal (not in dispute in this case) and that this is the least-intrusive means of doing it.

 

This only works in the case of some sort of religious objection. The government still can and does force private companies to subsidize things. This doesn't strike down the employer mandate or anything like that. Though if we really want to go down the path that Medicare-for-all would be preferable to the ACA/mandate/employer-provided insurance, I'm all for that.

That's not what the ruling says. It's specifically that a closely-held corporation has a RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) exemption if they're religiously opposed to contraceptions (though Hobby Lobby was providing them until a few years ago). In order to go around the RFRA objection, the government has to show that there's a legitimate public policy goal (not in dispute in this case) and that this is the least-intrusive means of doing it.

 

This only works in the case of some sort of religious objection. The government still can and does force private companies to subsidize things. This doesn't strike down the employer mandate or anything like that. Though if we really want to go down the path that Medicare-for-all would be preferable to the ACA/mandate/employer-provided insurance, I'm all for that.

 

Don't really need Medicare for all. Just need to open up the Federal Employee health care plan (which is essentially a giant exchange) to all employers and all individuals. Then require employers to pay a certain dollar amount toward employee plans, based on the total number of wage/salary dollars the company pays out, OR pay into a Federal pool that is used to cover low income people.

 

An important point about this ruling is that it applies only to closely-held corporations. Hobby Lobby may be a huge nationwide chain, but it's still owned by one family. A publicly traded company like Walmart couldn't make the same arguments.

Walmart could potentially define itself as a "Closely held" corporation as >50% of it is controlled by 1 family.

So, say a closely held family corp is against vaccines and refuse to cover them, could they do that?

 

No, right? Gov't would need to pick up bill for that too. I understand when splitting down to individual policies they can argue there are less intrusive ways, but in my mind this is just regulating insurance by hitting a basic minimum coverage.