PODCAST LAUNCHING 14 JANUARY 2019.

Welcome to test podcast 4.

If you have any feedback, please send it to feedme@dailybreakdown.com.au.

As usual, the practice podcasts are being housed here, so they might be a little slow. From 14 January, they will be hosted on a dedicated pod host.

Pill testing

Reason MP Fiona Patten says the NSW Premier has “blood on her hands” over lack of pill testing at music venues.

Full interview with Fiona Patten 3AW.

Data about pill testing.

Father Bob Maguire compares Manus to the Holocaust

The original tweet …

After the storm hit …

Roman makes everyone who got a dictionary for Christmas feel smug.

Roman is releasing a book in a few months … let’s hope he had a decent editor.

Pocahontas for President

The announcement in the most contrived and focus-grouped advertisements of all time:

Trump doesn’t sound worried:

The real reason she’s a fraud.

This is the great concern about Warren – her research into medical bankruptcies.

In September 2010, before Warren was a declared candidate for political office, Zywicki wrote[7] that Warren’s findings about medical bankruptcies was suspect:

Consider Ms. Warren’s much-ballyhooed study on the alleged link among health problems, medical expenses and personal bankruptcy filings. Published in the February 2005 issue of Health Affairs, the report was timed to head off bipartisan bankruptcy legislation that was enacted later that year. Ms. Warren and her co-authors claimed that “at least” 46% of personal bankruptcy filings in 2001 (the year from they collected the data) were the result of “medical causes,” and that this represented a 23-fold increase over 20 years.

Equally dubious, the authors classified a bankruptcy as having a “major medical cause” if the individual had accumulated more than $1,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses (uncovered by insurance) over the course of two years prior to filing—regardless of income, and even if the debtor did not cite illness or injury among the reasons for bankruptcy….

In contrast to Ms. Warren’s studies, a battery of analysis, including research done by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of the United States Trustee (which oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases), and by David Dranove and Michael Millenson of Northwestern University, concluded that fewer than 20% of bankruptcies are caused by health problems or medical expenses.

Last year Ms. Warren and her co-authors were back with an even more dramatic study, in the American Journal of Medicine, timed to promote President Obama’s health-care reform law. Drawing on 2007 filings, the authors concluded that 62% of bankruptcy filings were the result of medical issues and that the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause had doubled between just 2001 and 2007. This study was also flawed.

After Congress made it harder for people to skip out on their debts in 2005, the number of bankruptcy filings plummeted. In 2001, the year Ms. Warren used for the first study, there were 1,452,030 personal bankruptcy filings; in 2007 there were 822,590. Even if we are to accept the methodologies of the two studies for the sake of argument, there were 670,838 “medical bankruptcies” in 2001 and 510,828 medical bankruptcies in 2007—a drop of 160,000 per year. Yet Ms. Warren’s article nowhere acknowledges that the absolute number of bankruptcies and purported medical bankruptcies declined.

A later investigation found that “about 4 percent of insured patients and 6 percent of uninsured patients ended up filing for bankruptcy”.

That was a far cry from the claim advanced in a 2009 study by Ms. Warren and internal physician Dr. David Himmelstein that over 60 percent of bankruptcies in the U.S. were caused by extreme medical debt. Ms. Warren at the time was one of the country’s best-known bankruptcy law specialists.

… And then there’s the Fauxcohontas stuff which resulted in the greatest correction of all time (maybe).

But she did it as a con to pretend she was a minority hire.

Harvard Law School officials listed Warren as one of several minority hires in 1996.

“Of 71 current Law School professors and assistant professors, 11 are women, five are black, one is Native American and one is Hispanic,” then-Law School spokesman Mike Chmura told the Harvard Crimson in a 1996 article.

Apparently, Harvard did not consider her ethnicity when hiring Warren. In which case, which they then list her as Native American and why did she claim to be if it offered no advantage? Why then did she take a DNA test which showed to be less Native American than the average American?