leh-nerd skin-erd

I love the idea where a bank partners with a community to educate customers about the banking system, credit management, responsible borrowing and balancing a checkbook. Many do. I love the idea of reasonable fees for services, because just as in every walk of life, the relationship between cost and value matters. I draw the line at the hyper-victimization mentality where people become enraged because a fee is charged because they tried to spend money they didn’t have, and use phrases like “blood money” to address what is often an issue of personal responsibility. We live in a time where information necessary to navigate this complex relationship between available balance and desire for goods and services is at one’s fingertips. My relationship with banks, credit cards and money has taken twists and turns like many relationships do. Thankfully my role models focused on the personal responsibility aspect as opposed to the darker version you that you favor. My default would be: Allow the financial institution to asses cost/impact to their operations; Allow the financial institution to charge a reasonable fee based on said cost; Reasonable regulation balancing consumer/organizational needs makes sense; If a bank chooses to waive fees en masse, to encourage client relationships and/or loyalty, great; A $500 fee in your example seems excessive to me, but the government regulation you posted about limited the fee to $5. If a bank incurs, say $10 or $20 in cost, it makes sense to me that they should be able to recoup it.

That’s pretty nasty indeed, but I’m not reading anywhere that the change deals with payday loans, loans near military bases or Lord of the Dance tickets purchased on Ticketmaster. Bloomberg indicates the two issues that Homey was concerned about: $5 cap on overdraft fees from banks, where you spend node than you have; Firms offering digital payment service; https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/trump-signs-repeals-of-cfpb-overdraft-digital-payment-rules

Yes, I’ve bought tickets on Ticketmaster. I’m uncertain what you mean by unannounced fees. No, I’ve never taken a payday loan. (Were you a doctor for La Cosa

I don’t understand the rationale here. You have money in a checking account, let’s say $2,000. You write a series of checks, auto-withdraw a few other payments, hit the Starbucks for a few lattes and the total is $3,195. Who needs protection here, the bank or the consumer who lost track of their spending?

I really have no skin in this game, but I first heard about this when one of my Uncle’s came across the border for a private pay surgical procedure on his heart. His perspective was that due to extreme delays in treatment, he would be dead before his needs were addressed. To be fair, that was quite a few years ago and perhaps it’s gotten way better. I don’t think so, but maybe. E https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/i-had-started-saying-goodbye-why-some-canadians-go-abroad-for-medical-care/ According to the Canadian Medical Association, non-emergency surgeries that can be scheduled in advance, like hip, knee and cataract procedures, are being delayed, while a growing number of Canadians — now more than 6.5 million — lack access to a family doctor altogether. ‘I had to go abroad to save my life’ Celyn Harding-Jones, a Montrealer, says she was forced to look outside the country after living with a rare brain tumour for 20 years. “I had to go abroad to save my life,” she said in an email to CTVNews.ca. “I could not find one neurosurgeon in Canada who had any experience with this type of tumour or who was willing to operate.” “By the time I was 35, I had drop attacks and could barely care for my children,” she said, adding “the process to ask for provincial health boards for out of province care are not transparent, and not designed to be completed by people who are seriously sick.” https://thehealthinsider.ca/crossing-borders-for-care-the-rise-of-medical-tourism-for-canadians/#:~:text=Patients Leaving the Country&text=From 2017 to 2021%2C Canadians,jump over the previous years. Canadians seeking medical care abroad are a lot more measurable and are engaging in medical tourism in what is likely much higher numbers than reported. From 2017 to 2021, Canadians spent as much as $2.3 billion on out-of-country health care. According to reports published by the Fraser Institute, over 50,000 Canadians left the country in 2022 and that was a big jump over the previous years. The numbers continue to climb dramatically.

It's wouldn't be about you, Fergie, it's about the process mandated by the government for the benefit of the people it serves. You participate for the greater good, while maintaining the option to line your pockets at other times. The people are best served by access to all--and if a physician is going to benefit from the system, there should be a prerequisite for providing access to as many people as possible. Sheesh, I even went a bit on the liberal side suggesting the physician is not required to provide equal access to all more than 50% of the time. That allows for 50% of the week in pursuit of less financially restrictive opportunities. As for criticisms of my principles, you're the guy who wants special treatment because you were able to make a fortune off the treatment of others. The Canadian health care system as it exists is exactly what we should all hope to avoid, where patients are often forced to seek care internationally because the system simply fails to deliver consistent, quality care when needed. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's kind of odd that a doctor wouldn't know that. Do you feel this order represents an assault on democratic principles and executive overreach?

You’re just advocating for a system that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the average Joe. Don’t we have that already? If we’re looking for government intervention to fix a broken system, why not rip the bandaid off and get a system that truly benefits all. In a perfect world, the requirement is that a physician/specialty take all comers at the same fee for service. In a slightly less perfect world, there is a minimum requirement to treat avg folk say 50% of the time on a fee schedule basis. Save the boutique stuff for plastic surgery and elective surgery.

No, I don't have any complaints, just observations. You mentioned a couple posts previously about attracting the brightest and the best, that's why I wondered about a certain prerequisite of care for doctors benefiting from the system. Of course, the private pay folks may not be substantially better that those who treat all, they may just be better marketers. All things considered though, you end up with a system not at all unlike our system--it's just that the docs get to set the pricing v the market or the govt. In the end, someone is always on the wrong side of the equation.

Does the UK system require all physicians to participate in the single payer system at some level before they can freelance and set their pricing as they see fit?

That's pure foolishness--he's the last great voice of your party, and how/what he does sets the stage for the midterms and beyond. The Rs would love to see him be a disruptor as he was during the run up to the last election, would love to see infighting, chaos and drama. Likewise, the Dems likely want him to stay quiet and out of the spotlight as he has a tendency to say really stupid things and confuse Alaska with a potato. You should this one out.

It sounds to me like you're saying greed is driving all sides of this equation. Hospitals selling out. Doctors selling out. With respect to the CEO of the hospital, what type of salary are you speaking of? With respect to the top dog neurosurgeon, what type of earnings are you speaking of for him/her? As an alternative, what you you suggest as a fixed income for both?

"I don't want to talk about that..." --Fergie

That doesn't change the fact that EOs are used and supported in this fashion, and complaining because one doesn't like the agenda reveals a massive hypocrisy. You say Obama/Biden made a "blunder" with respect to their open borders EO, others see it not as a blunder, but as a deliberate, tactical assault on the sovereignty of our nation. It's not a matter of exonerating or not, it just is the way the political game is played. Using Andy's post as an example, he seemed perfectly fine with EOs when signed by those he wants to see in power, not so much now.

It’s a thread about Biden and his post-presidency activity. It’s in the thread title.

So, the Presidents you originally listed (Obama, Bush, Biden) bypassed the democratic process previously? So, it’s primarily the number and the agenda this time? I don’t disagree with you, but we deal with what’s in front of us. This is the way government works, and it seems unreasonable to complain primarily when your guy isn’t in office. That’s the standard these days, and when it’s brought up, the fallback position is “Whatboutism”. I see that as fact avoidance, because how it works in practice is pretty important when considering what things might look like in the future.

Just messing around last night after a long day. We’ll see where this goes, of course, but I’d think Trump 2 feels like he has a limited time frame to enact change, and believes there are establishment Rs in the way. On the EO front…is there a magic number you see as reasonable? Is it your belief that Obama issued 277 beyond reproach/righteous EO’s, and that Bush was hitting the sweet spot at 291? Because imo, just recapping numbers doesn’t tell a story whatsoever. In fact, how I does R outrage over Obama and/or Biden different than Democrat outrage over Trump? It seems to me you were fine with 277, but take issue with 278+ and a different agenda. To be honest, the whole process seems a gigantic clusterf+ck to me regardless of who is running the show.

Why do you hate the Prescripted, Andy? (I’m trying to get out in front of this one and People of Prescriptions doesn’t cover it)

More on this later, but I have no issues at all with your imaginary dialogue. I do the same. Leh-nerd (now, at this moment in time): Wow, what a yapper.

There’s a joke in there somewhere but I’m maturing as I get older. I’ll go with this—Levi is a poor man’s Leo, and why buy generic when you can get the brand name for free!

Happy Mother’s Day Mup—hope it’s an awesome one today. I’ve been lucky—a great Mother, a wonderful Mother-in-law, and my wife is an incredible Mother to my children. Today is a day for gratitude, I’m more and more convinced that having parents who care, and a mother who loves you enough to bring the pain during times of silliness is one of life’s great gifts. Mine did, and still does. In the spirit of gratitude I have also decided to unshun @B-Man. The Leo thing always makes me laugh. I think it’s not a coincidence that the new Pope took that name…😄

Yes, come to think of it, of course you can vent. I was just re-venting, I think. I think we’re buddies because we listen even if we don’t agree. Even now, I listened, I just didn’t agree. Also, now I have to shun @B-Man for putting us at odds.

Mup, you know I love ya, but there ain’t no one listening to no one these days, and it’s not a MAGA problem. The left went bonkers when Trump was elected, thought they carried the day with Harris and so vastly overplayed their hand they turned off just about everyone but the hardcore left. All this blather about Trump and retribution…people are not looking to meet in the middle any more than the liberals were under Biden. And @B-Man is a good dude and good poster. All he did was attempt to reset the dialogue. Very unsnarkolicious imo.

Look, it seems pretty obvious that Putin knew Biden’s tendencies, strengths and weaknesses. He moved on Crimea during O/B admin, he moved on Ukraine when Biden took over. We can only speculate why that happened, but the weakness of Democrat leadership and Biden in particular is a very strong and likely possibility. We do know he didn’t move during the Trump admin, which is interesting. Beyond that, was there an agreement in place between Biden and Putin to allow the move? Hard to say but it is strange that these things happened on the watch of a guy who sees himself as an expert on foreign policy. I’d suggest we follow the money on that, lost of people getting wealthy on that war. As for Vance and his statement, it seems pretty obvious to rational folk that he was direct, clear and in command of the dialogue. You seeing a disconnect to that statement while simultaneously finding the admin was looking to assist in the escalation….that may be because your president typically was active in the mornings, snoozing by noon and had a penchant for wandering off and being corralled by college aged interns.

It sounds like the most honest and reasonable answer a high ranking American official can give. You’re confusing political posturing— something we all know happens, with governance and leadership. What specifically did you find idiotic about what Vance offered here?

Interesting choice. Turns out she’s a classically trained flautist, and international celebrity. The symbolism of her playing Madison’s flute in DC is obvious, but she’s had her own issues with controversy and allegations of discrimination, harassment and being a pretty crappy employer. Beyond that, the potential downside of handling a 200+ year old crystal flute owned by one of the giants of American history seems pretty substantial. A bit reckless, maybe, but maybe they hold up pretty well.