Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by janrinok on Monday January 27 2020, @05:46PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years—more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany—a phenomenon possibly due to increased racial division, the rise of partisan cable news and changes in the composition of the Democratic and Republican parties.

That's according to new research co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown University. The study, conducted alongside Stanford University economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, was released on Monday, Jan. 20, as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.

In the study, Shapiro and colleagues present the first ever multi-nation evidence on long-term trends in "affective polarization"—a phenomenon in which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than toward their own. They found that in the U.S., affective polarization has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in the eight other countries they examined—the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.

"A lot of analysis on polarization is focused on the U.S., so we thought it could be interesting to put the U.S. in context and see whether it is part of a global trend or whether it looks more exceptional," Shapiro said. "We found that the trend in the U.S. is indeed exceptional."

Using data from four decades of public opinion surveys conducted in the nine countries, the researchers used a so-called "feeling thermometer" to rate attitudes on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 reflected no negative feelings toward other parties. They found that in 1978, the average American rated the members of their own political party 27 points higher than members of the other major party. By 2016, Americans were rating their own party 45.9 points higher than the other party, on average. In other words, negative feelings toward members of the other party compared to one's own party increased by an average of 4.8 points per decade.

The researchers found that polarization had also risen in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland in the last 40 years, but to a lesser extent. In the U.K., Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden, polarization decreased.

More information: Levi Boxell et al, Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization, (2020). DOI: 10.3386/w26669


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @11:56PM (6 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Tuesday January 28 2020, @11:56PM (#950325) Journal
    That somebody went to a fake abortion clinic is not medical information. The fake clinics, by definition, don't treat patients. It's no more medical information than if someone went to a drugstore ore a movie theatre. Or aren't you clear about the concept of "fake" in the term fake medical clinic. They are not doing anything that comes under the definition of medical - they're just a bunch of anti-abortionists trying to deter people from getting to a real clinic, one that can actually provide medical treatment.

    Think of it the same as all those tv shows where actors pretend to get married. It's not real. They don't need to get a divorce from their current spouse to go through the fake wedding ceremony.

    And you could probably buy information from some internet company that gave you the information on anyone who searched for a real abortion clinic. That's not medical information either. Same as they were selling ads targeting suicidal people.

    Your searches are public information. You consent to that when you do a search. As well as your information being sold.

    Now if the republicans were in Europe they would have a certain "right to be forgotten ", but in the US freedom of speech applies to everyone who isn't a protected minority - and abortion is not a protected minority - thanks to republicans, including those who have procured abortions while trying to deprive them to others.

    And there's nothing to stop such a list being posted on wikileaks or a similar site outside the US. Russia would probably develop such a list just to have leverage. Anything to stir up crap.

    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:07AM (5 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:07AM (#950332) Journal

    That somebody went to a fake abortion clinic is not medical information.

    Actually it is.

    It's no more medical information than if someone went to a drugstore ore a movie theatre.

    Drug stores are also subject to laws like HIPAA.

    They are not doing anything that comes under the definition of medical - they're just a bunch of anti-abortionists trying to deter people from getting to a real clinic, one that can actually provide medical treatment.

    It's still medical information and they're still subject to the laws of the land.

    And you could probably buy information from some internet company that gave you the information on anyone who searched for a real abortion clinic. That's not medical information either. Same as they were selling ads targeting suicidal people.

    The moment you link medical conditions to identifiable people, it becomes medical information.

    See the pattern?

    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:51AM (4 children)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:51AM (#950353) Journal
      Services provided by the pharmacist or technician are medical services. Buying a chocolate bar or a laptop aren't, and aren't covered by HIPPA even if the sale is performed by a pharmacist because the cashier hasn't come in yet. Neither is the fact that you entered or left the store. See the pretty security cameras? Try to shoplift a bunch of drugs, that video is not covered by HIPPA either.

      That you bought a box of Kleenex or Tampax or diapers is not medical information, even if bought at a drugstore. Even it it's linked to you, it's still not medical information just because it happens in a drugstore.

      Nothing the fake family planning shops do is medical information because they are not, by law, allied to perform any medical services. Non-medical services are simply not medical information. If they were, pro-choice folk could get them shut down for providing medical services without a license. But since they aren't medical providers and are very careful not to provide medical services ... their data is not protected by HIPPA. Find me one that claims to be covered by HIPPA and I'll happily forward the information to Planned Parenthood. They would love to shut the fakes down for medical fraud.

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:56PM (3 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:56PM (#951166) Journal

        Buying a chocolate bar or a laptop aren't, and aren't covered by HIPPA even if the sale is performed by a pharmacist because the cashier hasn't come in yet.

        Nobody said they were.

        That you bought a box of Kleenex or Tampax or diapers is not medical information, even if bought at a drugstore. Even it it's linked to you, it's still not medical information just because it happens in a drugstore.

        If you use that data to reconstruct medical conditions and identify those medical conditions with people, then you do fall under HIPAA. You know, what I've been saying all along.

        Nothing the fake family planning shops do is medical information because they are not, by law, allied to perform any medical services. Non-medical services are simply not medical information.

        Nor did anyone say they were. Awful lot of straw men in your post.

        But since they aren't medical providers and are very careful not to provide medical services ... their data is not protected by HIPPA.

        Wrong. Again, it's the handling of medical information not the providing of medical services that triggers HIPAA.

        Let me give you a real world example. As I've mentioned in the past, I do seasonal accounting work for a tourism/resort company in Yellowstone National Park. A number of years back, I decided to work winters in the park as well. That means working whatever is available. For about half a dozen years, that meant working security for a few months a year. Mostly that meant being a professional witness and shoveling a lot of snow.

        Every so often, in part because my location was barely high enough elevation to cause medical problems in some visitors and new employees, I would witness or assist guests and employees experiencing medical problems. To protect ourselves from liability, detailed reports of any such interactions were written up and submitted to my bosses. Even though I wasn't providing medical services, that information had to be kept under wraps more so than normal guest/employee interactions because of the medical information involved. And HIPAA was one of the big reasons why.

        In other words, you don't have to provide medical services in order to be subject to HIPAA. Selling candy bars or being a fake service doesn't immunize you from HIPAA requirements.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @03:54PM (2 children)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday January 30 2020, @03:54PM (#951219) Journal

          Nope. If you are not a covered entity [hhs.gov], you are not governed by HIPPA.

          Text Resize A A A Print Print Share Share on facebook Share on twitter Share HIPAA for Professionals Regulatory Initiatives Privacy has sub items, Privacy Security has sub items, Security Breach Notification has sub items, Breach Notification Compliance & Enforcement has sub items, Compliance & Enforcement Special Topics has sub items, Special Topics Patient Safety has sub items, Patient Safety Covered Entities & Business Associates has sub items, Covered Entities & Business Associates Business Associates Business Associate Contracts Training & Resources FAQs for Professionals Other Administrative Simplification Rules Covered Entities and Business Associates The HIPAA Rules apply to covered entities and business associates.

          Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules' requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If a covered entity engages a business associate to help it carry out its health care activities and functions, the covered entity must have a written business associate contract or other arrangement with the business associate that establishes specifically what the business associate has been engaged to do and requires the business associate to comply with the Rules’ requirements to protect the privacy and security of protected health information. In addition to these contractual obligations, business associates are directly liable for compliance with certain provisions of the HIPAA Rules.

          If an entity does not meet the definition of a covered entity or business associate, it does not have to comply with the HIPAA Rules. See definitions of “business associate” and “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103.

          Are you a health care provider, a health plan, or a health clearinghouse, or a worker or contractor for one of them? No? Then you are not bound by HIPPA.

          So threatening, say, a newspaper for violating HIPPA is ridiculous. Next time do some research before spouting off. You'll look less stupid.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 31 2020, @01:00AM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 31 2020, @01:00AM (#951521) Journal
            Not governed by explicit rules on handling medical information. I still think it's going to be jail time, if you play that game.

            Are you a health care provider, a health plan, or a health clearinghouse

            In your scenario the entity that collects medical data to shame conservatives counts as a health clearinghouse and hence, would be a covered entity.

            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 31 2020, @02:39AM

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday January 31 2020, @02:39AM (#951588) Journal
              No it doesn't, because it's not a health entity, It's a fake. It's not licensed as a health entity, it doesn't employ doctors or nurses or other medical workers, and it doesn't provide health care. It's a front for anti-abortionists. Orf are you too stupid to look at the government's own definition of who is covered by HIPPA - can't even click on the link I provided?

              If are you just being stupid for the sake of argument yet again. You ALWAYS do this. Your reputation of arguing despite the facts is well known.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.