birdog1960

to be clear, that was not meant as a knock on oncologists. they have one of the most difficult jobs in the world imo and i have much respect for them. there are some who fight on longer than others in cases with little hope. in most cases this is in response to patient wishes and can hardly be faulted. lastly, there are certainly differing definitions of futile care.

fixed

this is just false. it is the rare exception in my experience for a physician to not seize that moment. most everyone i've ever taken hospital call with did and does. the advice is often ignored unfortunately. almost all hospitalists i've worked with are very aggressive in recommending against futile care. oncologists are a fairly frequent exception but this is understandable given the life expectancy and mortality rates of their patient population. it was revenue over the next 10 years largely do to the increasing enrollment estimates from the new health care bill. my point is that there is no need for this money to be spent. the existence of insurance companies isn't producing better or cheaper care. they just get in the way of efficiently and rationally allocating finite resources. this is $200 bn additional (to lord knows how many 100's of billions to start with) serving no purpose.

respectfully disagree. it's not the doctors who insist on futile care, in most cases. it's the families and the patients. many people feel that anything can and should be fixed. this is a societal problem not a medical problem. and there's no one to say no...doctors can't be expected to make policy that the courts and gov'ts refuse to. a study I saw yesterday (annals of internal medicine) showed most primary care doctors feel americans get too much care in general, not just at end of life. this is due to many reasons but most importantly reimbursement based on volume, malpractice threat and societal expectations.

might some of the increased cost have something to do with the FT's other article: US health insurers to make $200bn more?

on star has other risks... a local attorney went missing after a party late one night. his wife had onstar track the car and the local police found him in a compromising situation. beware onstar.

i'll join the OP, too. happy to admit being wrong here. sat with a patsies fan watching the game today. old friend and class act who has never rubbed it in over the years and i restrained myself from that but not from screaming like a banshee...felt fantastic.

i say "tomatoe" you say "tomahtoe"....you say stop catering for the benefit of the true student athletes, i say stop exploiting for the benefit of the elite "student athletes". we could both be right and the solution would be dismantling big money college sports and continuing small money club sports.

these elite athletes aren't average 23-24yo or 18-22 yo. they are extraordinary. even the starters on top program football or basketball teams that don't sniff the pros are in a very small group with superior abilities. is there value in this talent? there sure is for the colleges. is a 1 year contract at $20-40k fair compensation for a 1 in a million talent approaching his prime? i don't think so but reasonable people could come to different conclusions. keep in mind the limitations on extracting the value from the scholarships, as well. how many study hours outside of practice are really available? is the aptitude and preparation really there to absorb and retain college level, career marketable material even without the time constraints? if you haven't already, read the espn commentary and the original atlantic article . they make a more compelling case than i ever could. if those don't convince you then you're unlikely to ever be convinced.

no.

no some went to places like hotchkiss, deerfield and exeter....but they still had plenty of help up to their perches.

the principle that makes it contradictory to believe both simultaneously is the sanctity of all life. that is the religious basis that i believe syracuse was referring to. no one thinks it's genius. rather, it's obvious.

well said

thanks for your insight. i've been following ANR for almost a year now and have come close to pulling the trigger in real life even while getting burned on it bad recently in this game. it's been as high as 100 and is now trading at 20. it's one of the largest coal companies in the world. how can its value possibly decrease by a factor of 5 in a year especially when most felt it's recent acquisition of massey energy was a wise move? fear has got to be a big part of the current low and the high was likely a bubble but i've got to conclude that, at least in this instance and probably in many more, emotions rather than rational thinking are running the market.

holy chit! just like my real portfolio, i can hardly look much less add up my losses. but this may be the major dip to buy in real life. magox, your thoughts here? have to muster some major guts.

so they don't negotiate...they enable negotiations. they're still a major engine of this fetid, exploitative machine that enriches a few at the expense of the many athletes who could financially do much better in a true open market. nosaint asks what happened to playing for the love of the game? agents, tv contracts, nike, adidas, budweiser, booster clubs and on and on. the game becomes a means to an end. the elite players see that as well as the big money interests. the passion can be diluted pretty early on. as the espn article suggests, the best solution would be for the universities to sell their minor league businesses to the major pro leagues. then sports at the college level could again be about the love of the game. we all know that's not bloody likely. it's interesting that the sports cited by indy are generally not participated in large numbers by low socioeconomic groups. while these sports are often played for the love of the game they are being subsidized by sports that are more frequently played by those groups.

i agree. they should be schools and not corporations. but they're currently acting a lot like corporations when dealing through the ncaa for tv contracts, apparel contracts and coaching contracts. are there any professors making anywhere near what a top college head football coach makes? how bout university presidents? that alone proves the priority assignment. i'm fine with club sports only as a solution but it will never happen. for all the crying about the cost of college sports programs they'll never willingly give up the cash cows that are college football and march madness. if they're going to do it on this scale, and they are, why not do it honestly?

cool story. saw him interviewed about it. was quite humble saying he's the last person to read an ekg as an obstetrician (very true) but that he thought the guy was having an mi based on the strips the rescue squad obtained. nice work. now if only he wasn't such a butthole as a congressman....

let the market decide. schools pay for players and sports that they deem will be profitable or are worth the expense on the basis of prestige or reputation. make sports that can't recoup their costs into club sports like virtually every other university system in the world does. then we could honestly call the competitors student athletes.

to me, a free market in this case would allow a university or multiple universities to go outside the confines of ncaa rules to compensate a high school prospect at a competitive level in order to produce a competitive product and then not be blackballed from playing teams inside the "system". it doesn't require the players starting a new league. it requires the break up of a current monopoly...which i suspect we will soon see.

everyone signed up because there's no alternative in most sports. you're a free market guy right? this system is the farthest thing from a free market and the ncaa aims to keep it that way. re your chemistry analogy (and i worked as a grad student with a research assistantship in chemistry) if you're good enough, you can go right into industry. it's rare to find such a prodigy but it happens. probably not much more rare than an elite athlete of say, cam newton's qualifications.

ah, student athletes... a term made up 50 years ago by the ncaa to avoid paying workers comp payments to injured athletes. the educational opportunity is on a year by year basis. get hurt or stop producing and the scholarship can be cut. the argument would be at least a little more convincing if "student athletes" were given guaranteed 4 year scholarships. and who says there first priority is an education? i'll bet if they were polled, many of the elite athletes in the big money sports would say their priority is to make money. the ncaa and the universities attempts at convincing us otherwise doesn't make it so.

so they're not entitled to any of the revenue they are responsible for producing in college? and how bout the 90+% that never go pro?

the SEC has over a billion $ in revenue and you begrudge them tats and oakelys? and that's the point, it shouldn't have to be "somehow or another"...they should be openly paid for what they produce.

except that the players aren't paid...and that's a big exception. they should be sharing in all that revenue. right now, even their measly scholarships are one year contracts. it's a very bad deal for them and the ncaa holds together the house of cards.