Doc
-
Posts
66,107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Doc
-
-
from the CIA website: "life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes mortality at all ages. it can be thought of as indicating the political return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures."
so how we doin? the CIA ranks the US 50th worldwide by this measure.
it won't happen in a vacuum. it will take cultural change although there's no harm in trying. i've cited you evidence previously about the effectiveness of smoking cessation counseling and i have plenty of anecdotal evidence.
Why do you need Obamacare to effect cultural change?
-
and you were doing so well til the last sentence... "obamacare" is a means to an end. it's just the jumping off point for everything else you mentioned. will it work as envisioned? maybe not but it's a work in progress and will certainly require both major and minor tweaks over time. magox, you seem to actually want a better system with better outcomes. to me that desire seems obvious and natural. i'm not so sure about d/c or rob. it's all about "what's in it for me" and "i'm alright jack, pull up the ladder". unfortunately there are plenty of americans that think this way and that has much to do with the appalling life expectancy statistics.
Creating a gigantic entitlement and then expecting to "tweak it" is a fantasy. Again look at Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. But if by "jumping off point," you meant "a cliff," I agree with you.
As for counseling an education, that's another fantasy. The American public wants to hear none of it, and I'd bet your patient population is no healthier than that of your peers, despite your belief that Obamacare is a step in the right direction (and you've no doubt adopted many of the guidelines in it).
-
If Merriman produces, is it still an act of desperation?
As for Bucky Brooks, what a waste of a 2nd round pick that guy was.
-
Heck, the defendant argued that he was alive. His contention was is that the guy on the ground was still a threat. Smarter argument would have been he was dead I suppose. Then it is just corpse mutilation.
If the defendant argued that he was alive, then he and his counsel are idiots.
-
so it follows that the myriad of other factors is an indictment of current american culture...agreed. it appears we also agree that american patients largely can not be counted on to control costs on their own. so, what is the solution? a paradigm shift in the way we practice medicine. we stop treating every minor complaint. we get reimbursed mostly for improving patients wellness. we stop trying to fix things beyond repair. and some times we just say "no". but who is the "decider"? the insurance companies? the govt? the people themselves who we've just concluded are generally incapable? who has the ability to change the culture? maybe we should turn to madison ave to actually do some good for a change.
No, the real solution is to dictate to people how they will have to live (the "personal mandate" is merely a step in that direction, as are the "death panels"), so as to lower health care expenditures for the country. Changing everything else and not the root cause is wholly futile.
And who gets to make the decision to say "no?" A doctor? Like Kathleen Sebelius (
)? What if someone is denied care and he/she truly has a problem and dies. Who gets sued? The government? The doctor? Because Obamacare addressed tort reform?The sooner you realize this, bd, the better-off you'll be: Obamacare was designed to further squeeze the salaries of doctors. The problem is, those account for less than 15% of health care expenditures, yet Barry cut deals with the major players/deep pockets and that's why not only will nothing improve, it will get far worse. And again you're laboring under the false delusion that you'll make out on this whole deal, when the reality is your pay will be cut less than specialists' will.
-
Didn't read the specifics of the case, but how do they know he was unconscious and not dead after the first shot?
-
sure, if the private insurers agree to take the sickest patients and not cherry pick (and that is coming in 2014 when pre-existing conditions go away- just wait for the rationing from anthem, humana and the like when it happens.
and no, the us came in 31st in world mortality statistics in the most recent report but spent by far the most. almost every nation ahead of us had govt run healtjhcare, rationing and an emphasis on primary care.
I agree that insurers should not be allowed to cherry pick and/or kick-off expensive subscribers. But removing pre-existing conditions means that you can get insurance only when you need it and drop it when you don't. Insurance is destined to fail that way and the system will collapse quick, especially since everyone is going to be paying the same premium. The fine/penalty/tax for not having insurance is so ridiculously low that it's not a deterrent. And again, mandating people buy insurance is opening the floodgates to unprecedented government intrusion. But if you're fine with that, then you'll be fine with the government telling you what you can and can't do, right?
Taking life expectancy by itself without adjusting for the myriad of factors that contribute to it is meaningless. Despite/because of the health care system, Americans take horrible care of themselves, yet expect everything be done for them and it to be done cheaply and perfectly, otherwise they'll sue. So obviously the U.S. spends a ton on health care.
-
but this is what it will take to get entitlements under control...that or have the private insurers do it, which for some reason you folks are eager to accept. we need to stop the mri's for the people that "just want to know" and the stress test on 30 year olds with gas pains and all the futile care. the gov't really is the only entity that can effectively do this. same for social security reform. the painful stuff has to happen. if you're asking if the political will really exists on either side then i agree, that's a serious question.
Adding yet another entitlement is what it will take to get entitlements under control?
no, you don't realize what i'm arguing...for reasonable rationing based on thoughtful allocation of limited resources, for safe harbors to just say no, for refusal without fear of reprisal for denying unnecessary care. for empowering people with actual medical knowledge to be the decision makers. everywhere in the world that this has worked has a govt run system.
The government can ration health care for those on Medicare and Medicaid without destroying the system for everyone else. And government run systems in other countries are failing.
-
What really kills soccer for me is the way they keep time. To me it's insane not to play to a hard clock instead of a referee's whim. I'd also stop the clock for injury. None of this faking schitt.
Yeah, the "stoppage time" seems completely arbitrary and another reason to
.Fifa actually said it was because Solo moved forward (which she clearly did not even when you watch the replay in super slow-mo). Just wow. I'm not sure if the thought of the fix being in is any more scary than an honest ref being that incompetent at her job.
I thought that the official reason given was that Solo allegedly moved forward, which she most certainly didn't do. Then I heard people talking about the encroachment by the other US player and thought it was weak call at best. Again more evidence the fix was in. What's funny was to hear the Brazilians say they didn't deserve to lose.
-
That's because after they're still reeling from the effects of Obamacare, they're scared shitless about what the Current Occupant will create a national mandate for next.
SCOTUS needs to strike down Obamacare. If they don't, ANYTHING will be fair game to be forced on people under the charade of "regulating interstate commerce."
-
Set your DVRs for wednesdays match against France.
and tonight at midnight ESPN2 will replay todays match
as an "Instant Classic"
Rapinoe's pass to Wambaugh for the second goal was a thing of beauty.
Regarding the re-do on the penalty kick that Hope blocked.
Encroaching happens, but is rarely called , like traveling in the NBA
It was FIFA/the refs trying to give Brazil every advantage they could after being down 1-0 and looking like they were going to go down. The play should never have been called a penalty in the first place, much less a red card given. And on the 2nd goal by Marta, there was clear off-sides. With officiating like that, as well as all the flopping, it makes soccer almost impossible to stomach.
-
You don't have to vote for one over the other. You could vote for a 3rd party or decide not to vote at all
The difference being...?
-
Government has grown to the point that we can no longer support it with the tax base; not even close. And there’s not close to enough revenue to be gained by raising taxes and cutting defense to close the gap. Yet, we’re told we need to continue expanding entitlements and benefits, which are the biggest glut on the budget, with no coherent explanation of how to avert disaster. Can someone explain how this is supposed to work?
One word: volume.
Change happens! You can hope that America is economically down all you want. But the American economy is way beyond your limited expectations and hopes for failure. America is can do! Republicans are not.
Wow. Just, wow.
-
That's why I said it. LOL. No doubt. I understand a little bit that people can't get their heads around the idea that our "savior" could actually be somebodies cast off. I think the Saints are pretty OK with Drew Brees. I'm not saying Fitz is Drew Brees before anyone gets in a tizzy about it. I hate when people use the Tom Brady late round draft pick hall of fame QB exception as the rule for not using high draft picks to get franchise QBs but like that situation it's just an example.
Maybe if we stop looking at Fitz as a stop gap measure and take the emotional risk of actually giving him our support in good games and in bad we could have what we have all been looking for for some time.
Doh!
-
Probably a hematoma. And if I had to guess, an epidural one. What a tragedy and over a stupid baseball.
-
Good to hear he worked on his strength. Hopefully he's been working on the accuracy issues.
-
How can you be so certain that Fitz can't be that guy? In 13 games Fitz put up the second most TD's, 23, in the last TWENTY YEARS!!!! Bledsoe barely beat him in 2002 with 24 and Kelly put up 33 in 1991. Think about that. I mean really. Think about that! I think it puts Fitz into perspective historically.
Another thing to remember is Fitz did it in 13 games while Bledsoe did it in 16. And Fitz wasn't getting the majority of snaps in training camp.
-
Anything more than a 2nd for Kolb is a mistake. And even if he were to be traded for just a 2nd, he has high bust potential.
-
She should, but probably won't. In any case, it won't make a difference either way.
-
I think it's time for you to change the title of your thread to "Let me convince you that Ralph already granted Toronto an option to buy", since this appears to be an ongoing effort to prove that this is the case.
As many have stated: no, he hasn't. You continue to provide abstract references to the Toronto sports market and miscellaneous financial "indicators" without any supporting evidence that there is anything to your theory other than conjecture.
We get it: you think Ralph already sold Buffalo out.
Now it's time for you to get it: nobody agrees with you.
Move on.
Yep. It's an interesting theory, but has no basis in fact.
-
If the plan was to screw up the country so bad that even illegals didn't want to come here anymore, good job!
-
She was nothing special before killing her daughter, and she's even uglier now.
-
I would disagree simply because the macho types exert so much peer pressure on people that generally reasonably people are persuaded into doing dumb things. Helmet laws are just a good idea.
How about some personal responsibility? It's all "he/she/it/God made me do it."
Perhaps we should legislate ALL behavior?
-
I support a person's right to choose. However if you do choose not to wear one, don't expect someone else to pickup the tab for your medical costs related to it.
How can Obamanomics play out?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Incentives...for whom?
Doubtful. Barring a major miracle, the Repubs look all but assured of taking congress and the presidency. Which means buh bye to Obamacare.
That is, assuming Obamacare survives SCOTUS.