Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 26, 2014, 02:37 am

Updated Topics | Recent Unread Topics
Home Help Search Login Register

+  Dragon Mountain
|-+  Forum
| |-+  Sanctum Sanctorum
| | |-+  Charts and Graphs thread
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 45 Print
Author Topic: Charts and Graphs thread  (Read 94578 times)
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #160 on: January 30, 2012, 09:24 pm »

I think that might be a Journal of Irreproducible Results thing, BSam.

Source: http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/index.html#OneGraph




NASA has released a study on the years 2005 to 2010 because for some reason people still think that global warming might be "natural" and highlighted in blue is how much energy hit the earth from the sun during that period.

source: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html


source: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/lying-charts-global-warming-edition
Logged
BSam
THE FUCKDOG



View Profile
« Reply #161 on: January 30, 2012, 09:27 pm »

I found it in this article.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/mp/9841518/man-wins-right-to-wear-pasta-strainer-on-driver-licence/
Logged
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #162 on: January 30, 2012, 09:31 pm »

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ It seems to have originally been from here and on that very graph contest page from the Journal of Irreproducible Results, it won for the Funniest Graph Already Published category.
Logged
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #163 on: February 06, 2012, 03:01 pm »








Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html
Logged
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #164 on: February 07, 2012, 02:49 pm »


edit: Derp, here's a link to the source http://publicreligion.org/research/2012/02/january-tracking-poll-2012/
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 03:07 pm by fermun » Logged
raknade
Buddy Friend Pal


Move along there there there that's that


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: February 08, 2012, 04:21 am »

Well, that's an unexpected result from Catholics.
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #166 on: February 08, 2012, 04:46 pm »

Generally speaking, Catholics usually tend toward a moderate/liberal political position than other Christians.
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #167 on: February 08, 2012, 05:12 pm »

In America, Catholics have tended to be poorer than average and have a larger percentage of minorities than average. Historically, Catholic leaders have been in favor of social justice and with a large chunk of the Catholic population being below median income, its pulled Catholics towards the Democratic Party. Furthermore, free birth control is pretty popular with people who sometimes have trouble affording birth control.

The leaders of Catholic organizations are very much against the provisions of Obama's healthcare reforms that require no-cost birth control. Many Catholic universities are making a stand on this issue, and John Boehner, the (Catholic) Speaker of the House has threatened to shut down the government entirely unless the provisions that allow for free birth control are removed by an executive order.
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #168 on: February 08, 2012, 05:47 pm »

If the opposition manages to knock down the whole health care progress that's been made by being stubborn over this one asinine little detail, I will be severely pissed.  While on the whole I support that the new health care plan covers birth control for women, I would much rather see a compromise be made and alternate arrangements be made to provide the relatively small cost of birth control to a relatively small portion of total employees (i.e. those that work for religious organizations).
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #169 on: February 08, 2012, 06:30 pm »

I haven't found anybody talking about numbers of people actually affected so I looked into it a bit, but didn't find anything near complete data.

The number of workers in Catholic hospitals is 600,000.  The total number of hospital workers is around 14 million.  So 4% of hospital workers would be affected. 

Catholic K-12 schools employ about 160,000.  I haven't been able to find information about Universities.  The most significant numbers outside of Catholic groups also probably fall within education and depending on details may qualify as exempt anyway as they "propagate the faith."

As far as general organizations like charities or the other groups that are formally affiliated with a religion, I couldn't find any data.  Probably because that definition is pretty fluid.

There are about 130 million total workers in the USA.  Based on the numbers I WAS able to find, I would say that it's reasonable to estimate that we're talking about maybe 1% of the workforce that are affected by this ruling (I'm actually surprised it's that high). 
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
Bettytron
Posts: 5



View Profile
« Reply #170 on: February 08, 2012, 07:15 pm »

That's 1% of the workforce, and also their families who may be included on their health insurance plans. I think the principle of the thing is really important here, because we're talking about letting employers impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

This guy summed it up really neatly, I think.
Logged

nchammer326
Hurker


I'm charming, I'm dashing, I'm rental-car bashing


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: February 08, 2012, 08:05 pm »



From here, via Think Progress.
Logged

A stupid note is produced. It's the one assholes play to make their audience start punching themselves in the crotch repeatedly.
Honest Abe
Chairman, Pug Club Local 80085
Hyperbolic Paraboloid


join pug club! ask me how!


View Profile
« Reply #172 on: February 08, 2012, 08:16 pm »

while those are interesting numbers, i don't like this tactic of argumentation. sure birth control is used for other things, but the only argument needed is birth control is legal and fuck you for imposing your religious beliefs on other people.
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #173 on: February 08, 2012, 08:22 pm »

The Washington Post Editorial Board opines:

Quote
...the significance of the new health-care law is that the federal government will for the first time require all employers to provide insurance coverage for their workers ó in other words, to spend their own money to help underwrite this coverage ó or, in many cases, to pay a penalty. In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.

Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #174 on: February 08, 2012, 08:37 pm »

The Washington Post Editorial Board opines oddly. This specific provision has been decided on before: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #175 on: February 08, 2012, 08:48 pm »

Does that ruling deal specifically with religious exemptions and regard to the first amendment?  The defendant parties aren't named, so it's not clear.  The opinion from the Washington Post is that if the administration is recognizing the religious implications of the decision and offering an exemption to church-specific religious organizations, it seems silly to quibble over how specific to get over whether or not a Catholic hospital is also a religious organization.   

I guess I don't understand why there's such opposition to finding a compromise here.  What if, as part of the exemption for religious organizations, you required them to provide the ability to opt-out of the employer plan with a cash payment equivalent that the employees that could use to purchase health care of their choosing on their own (which will be readily available anyway on new government mandated exchanges).  Then the churches are not being asked to directly subsidize something they have a problem with, and the people are still able to get their health care from their employer.  It's basically the most trivial compromise in the world but people are getting out and drawing a line in the sand about it. 
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
Honest Abe
Chairman, Pug Club Local 80085
Hyperbolic Paraboloid


join pug club! ask me how!


View Profile
« Reply #176 on: February 08, 2012, 09:09 pm »

i'm not sure i understand the need for an exemption. if they want to do business in this country they follow the laws. i guarantee you 99% of the people against this would go apeshit if a company wanted to exert sharia law on its employees.
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #177 on: February 08, 2012, 09:13 pm »

Well then why make the exemption for churches?
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
fermun
Mod



View Profile
« Reply #178 on: February 08, 2012, 09:17 pm »

That EEOC ruling is that religious organizations with 15 or more employees still have to meet Civil Rights Act requirements for not discriminating based on gender and that they therefore have to help pay for contraception for female employees in their insurance. They have been paying for part of birth control this entire time. The health care reform only changes that it is in effect for organizations with fewer than 15 employees and that they have to provide birth control coverage with no copay.

It has been ruled that it is gender discrimination to not provide coverage on a preventative care medicine for a condition that only effects one gender, so I don't think compromising on it is necessary. The law is clear. It is gender discrimination to discriminate based on ability to become pregnant.

Quote
  • Respondents must cover the expenses of prescription contraceptives to the same extent, and on the same terms, that they cover the expenses of the types of drugs, devices, and preventive care identified above. Respondents must also offer the same coverage for contraception-related outpatient services as are offered for other outpatient services. Where a woman visits her doctor to obtain a prescription for contraceptives, she must be afforded the same coverage that would apply if she, or any other employee, had consulted a doctor for other preventive or health maintenance services. Where, on the other hand, Respondents limit coverage of comparable drugs or services (e.g., by imposing maximum payable benefits), those limits may be applied to contraception as well.
_
  • Respondents' coverage must extend to the full range of prescription contraceptive choices. Because the health needs of women may change -- and because different women may need different prescription contraceptives at different times in their lives -- Respondents must cover each of the available options for prescription contraception. Moreover, Respondents must include such coverage in each of the health plan choices that it offers to its employees. See 29 C.F.R. part 1604, App. Q&A 24; Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 1081-82 n.10 (1983).

This has been the law for 11 years, 3 months. For all this time, religious organizations were being asked not to discriminate based on gender and no one complained.
Logged
Johnny Roastbeef
Unbanned



View Profile
« Reply #179 on: February 08, 2012, 09:18 pm »

Then why exempt churches?
Logged

All right, later dudes. S you in your Aís, donít wear a C, and J all over your Bís.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 45 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!