OCinBuffalo

For the Keynsians: 80 years of "In the long run, we're all dead(teehee) " has led us to exactly where we are today. The question is: what will another 20 years of being the grasshopper do? If there is karma/justice/whatever? Right when Krugman needs his Medicare, it will be insolvent! Will it matter then, Paul? Oh, no, I forgot, Paul can probably afford private pay nursing/medical care, so it's not his problem. And, since Obamacare will have been around for 20 years, a panel of "experts" will decide that his continued existence is unneccesary, and hand him a ticket for Carousel:

That's right Birdog, you can think of ways to beat this idiotic regulation, and you are in favor of this idiocy. How's that feel? To be in favor of something you know is stupid? (Btw, breadcrumbing the ICD codes is the most obvious solution, and no, that is not fraud. Followed by just re-tasking beds as sub-acute, and sub-acute has been around way before your "new Medicare codes". You want to build whole buildings and schit. ) Also, how's it feel to make my point for me? Again? If the answer is sound primary care....then why not make a regulation that says "everybody needs an after-hospital primary care plan, and if that plan fails, we blame the plan first, measure the execution of the plan, and see what failed and why"? This 30 day re-admit thing is merely an arbitrary abstraction, and therefore, useless as a quality indicator, and a performance idicator. The only things it indicates is that "sometimes people need to go back to the hospital...for lots of reasons, and, regardless of those reasons, we're, again, going with One-Size-Fits-All". How come you can't see the folly of One-Size-Fits-All? Even I can see it, and I learned a lot of my workflow skill set from SAP. I am up at this god-awful hour because of One-Meeting-Time-Fits-All German tools. If we both come up with mulitple ways to be beat this in <5 minutes(how long it took me), what chance does this regulation have of doing anything other than creating unintended consequences? So I ask...when you said "get ready" above...who exactly should be getting ready, and for what?

Anybody think that Wall Street and investors bet on the fact that the sequester's forceed reduction of spending(not cuts), actually has a good chance of decreasing inflation? I see no reason why there isn't a correllation along the lines of: "they were forced to stop crazy spending increases, although perhaps symbolic, the Obama "culture of spending" is curtailed, thus there's a good chance the stocks I wanted to buy, are going up".

Yeah? Do those predictors of stupidity know how hospitalization, and then, re-hospitilization, works? In terms of the business process? By that I mean the entire process, what the admitting people do, and the data they record, decisions they make, etc., what the nurses do, what the docs do? No, they don't, do they? They know the concept in terms of a dictionary definition, but, not how it actually works. Hence, they don't realize just how easy it will be to get around that rule. How, you ask? Well, birdog, why don't you show us your command of the average hospital's business processes? How would you get around the rule, and make sure that you always got paid? Edit: Sorry, "you" can be: as the private practice physician, as the nursing home, or as the hospital itself, as re-hospitalization could be a problem for any/all 3 at the same time. Tip off: The first solution is so obvious, that if birdog doesn't come up with it he is either a liar or an idiot.

Oh Horseshit Birdog. In order: 1. I nailed your ass to the floorboards using your own "it's stupid to say more is better no matter what" words. More government no matter what, is not better. In fact, historically, for the reasonable man, it rarely has left things better than when it found them. You correctly identified that each problem must be taken seperately, and that "more is always better" is simply stupid. You just don't like the fact that your own very valid assertion is being used against you. 2. No Birdog. One of your many errors is: not only can I envision the problem correctly, I can also envison your stupid choices in an attempt to solve it, and their efffects, both long term and short term, and what's more? I can envision at least 3 better ways to solve the problem. The trouble for me is...should I spend my time telling you why your capitation idea not only has NEVER worked, but that those that are saying it is are either suffering from an illusion, delusion, or simply don't know WTF they are talking about? Or, should I not waste time on that, and instead, tell you about my 3 better approaches, which will not only work short term, but are change-friendly going forward? It's hard to say, especially on a board where douchebags whine about posts about broad and deep subjects, not being in the form of hot pockets, to wit: Dude, if you can't see why I need to write so much on this topic, then you are retarded as well, and you should STFU, unless you have a better solution for birdog's ignorance/stupidity. Birdog doesn't even understand basic things. It's either explain those basic things, so that we can then move on to explaining the intermediate reasons why he is wrong, or just take the DC_Tom route and call him an idiot, and DC_Tom already has in multiple recent threads. Those are my choices. There aren't any good ones.

I agree. Dopes like you have been advocating for more government since before I was born. And what's worse? When dopes like you get shut down, lose elections, etc., what's the first thing you tell people to get back in power? You tell them they are being cheated, and, if they would only vote for your candidates, they would get more. Well, don't you? Where is the evidence, given 70+ years of "more government is better" FAIL, that supports your contention? Throughout the course of this post. I will examine your lack of evidence and highlight the contradictory evidence. It's not the possible outcomes, which could just as easlly be the exact opposite of what you describe(and denying that is the height of wishful thinking), that make this is a patently stupid idea. It's the fact that said board, once ensconced, has neither checks, nor balances. It's the fact that you can't seem to comprehend why that is a massive, unavoidable, problem we don't need to create, and then attempt to solve. Have you even considered this? What's your mitigation for this? Or, is this a flight of unmitigated idiocy? How in God's name do you think creating a never-ending fountain of underwriting/revenue that is the "public option" will reduce profit taking or cause anybody to start thinking in terms of "effective care"? If the money will never end, where is the cost cutting? Do you understand business, real business, on any level at all? Has the never ending flow of government cash caused college tuition...to go up, or down? Oh, I know, just put in automatic, arbitrary cuts to reimbursement, right? That will really create a culture amongst providers to cut cost. You aren't telling them to manage anything. How are they supposed to get better at anything, to innovate, to find efficiencies, and increase the efficacy you want...if they know that no matter what they do, it just doesn't matter, their revenue is being set by arbitrary, unthinking, government employee turds whose only care is making the job at their agency easier? Of course, I'm not sure if I should I expect somebody who has no more management experience than a manager of a retail store to understand the management intracies and requirements of a large organization, or even one with 50 employees. So, here's a hint, providers will do what they do now: nothing but B word, and try to find ways to get over on/out of it. There will be no effort towards effectiveness, efificiency, or cost savings. Then, we WILL be rationing health care. See...this is the grand delusion. Or, in other words: communism works great, for the first 6 months. Iinitially this would work. Then, what happens? In no more than 2 years, given what you have written above: The doctor who thinks his patient should get a chair...doesn't, because some faceless doctor bureaucrat says so. And, what's worse? There aren't a whole lot of companies who make chairs, and the ones that do don't make that many, the cost of them is very high, and they break all the time. Your plan = less chairs for more people, and the ones that you can get...suck miserably. Welcome to Cuba! This is the lesson of price fixing and competition elimination. Perhaps you require a lesson in both? I have a book-like post that I will drop on your ass. I just finished it. It's quite effective in explaining why you are an idiot about this issue. If we can agree that the above is idoicy, and that basing any idea on fixed pricing, single suppliers, arbitarty cuts/raises, and goverment "standards" like the MDS, and now the new idiocy: "Meaningful Use", is a planning to fail, then fine. If not, then it's the book for you.

Right, and the policy that says 'we will give you a free scooter', which emanates from the policy that says 'paying for a scooter is cheaper than paying for any form of nursing care', which emanates from the policy that says 'we will pay for whatever health care you want', that emanates from what exactly? Oh, that's right, politicized handouts for votes. So what exactly is the root cause of this "waste"? I love how you clowns support buying eveybody everything, and then, when you see the result, or when somebody calls you on it, or when somebody inevitably finds a way to rip you off, because your plan isn't thought out at all, rather, it's based on "being a more moral person" you holler "waste, fraud and abuse"! Who created the conditions for this? Who are the people constantly demanding that we spend more money, as fast as possible, without thinking, because "there's no time, Mrs. Jones needs her scooter yesterday, and everybody else in the country's needs aren't important...because I have to be a more moral person!"?

Any chance Marrone doesn't want Smith? I mean, Syracuse beat the guy 3 times in a row. Does it make sense that Marrone says something along the lines of "If I can beat the guy 3 times, then so can other people". Of course, this could go the other way: Marrone probably has a better personal knowledge of Smith than anybody else in the NFL, and if he likes him, peharps that means he pushes to get him? I don't know the history/never watched the games. Anybody with better knowledge have any insight on this angle?

Doh!

Thought I'd write about something that wasn't sequester-based. A couple of different news stories over the last months have started me thinking about this, and the "Miss Teen USA does Porn" story kind of seals it for me, given the deafening silence from feminists. They better wake the F up, and realize that both historically and practically, their movement is entirely self-destructive, without a full and consistent commitment to morality. Without morality, not a part of their argument, but the basis for it, they will be the cause of their own destruction, and take many women down with them. Consider: 1. In college, I had a friend who was fond of saying: "Don't make fun of sluts. The more sluts there are, the more we ALL get laid". Remove the emotion from your mind, now, logically: he is right, isn't he? Next, replace the word slut with: slave. If you wanted a slave to continue accpeting their condition, why would you make fun of them? No, the last thing you would do is anything that might rally them to think they deserve to be treated better, and choose different behavior. Thus encouragement of immoral behavor amongst women, only serves to lower them both individually and as a group. When this is done on a mass scale? Well? Paris Hilton sex tapes-->the rash of teenie self-shot videos and pics-->a friggin new norm. To extend my friend's logic: The more sluts there are, the more women that are treated like sluts. How is that in line with feminist's stated goals? There used to be feminists, in the 70s, who fully recognized this. Where the F are they? 2. The great, sweeping feminist movements in history(however misguided) were all predicated on morality. Temperance movement: it's immoral to get drunk, come home, and beat your wife(misguided part: focused on the drinking, not on the beating). Suffrage: It's immoral to require women to pay taxes, yet, deny them the vote. In the 70s, the ERA failed. Why? Because this is the first time that some immorality was introduced into the premise. While it is immoral to have a purposeful policy to pay women less, partial-birth abortion is even more immoral. While it is immoral to deny women the right to compete for any job, it is even more immoral to demand that we accept the single mother family as an equivalent to the standard nuclear family. To be sure, we must tolerate and even support single mothers, but we should NEVER act like it's ideal, and we have to hold all those who created that situation accountable. Taking 1 and 2 together...it's not hard to see where this goes: The more immoral you are, the less respect you get. Feminists seem to think they can scare people from challenging them, specifically politicians. We know that leadership based on fear is vastly inferior to leadership based on respect, and therefore, is easily undone. Without the moral high ground, feminists are fooling themselves if they think they will be taken seriously, since it is the markedly increased immoral behavior of women itself, that is markedly eroding their position, and therefore, their power. But, more importantly, personally, if you don't have any self-respect, because you are an immoral person, you will inevitably end up as a lesser person, and no amount of laws can be passed to prevent this. Sure, there will be exceptions, but if we are talking every woman in the USA? The lowering tide lowers all ships. Personally, this ain't my problem. This is a feminist problem that they are bringing upon themselves. This is 100% on women in general, and they have to accountable for how they behave, and accept the results of that behavior. I will go along with whatever, because...have you ever tried to argue with them about things like this? Utterly pointless exercise. This is not a "it takes 2 to tango" situation at all. Feminists are literally making their own bed, and deciding who, and how, they sleep in it.

But that's the very point: the asumption = no, in fact Obama doesn't have to win the game, he's already won it. Look, as each hour goes by the story on this thing changes. Now Obama himself is playing it down, after spending this whole month playing it up as a massive crisis? Now he's the one telling us it won't be that bad? The latest article on RCP is concludes with "The best for Obama is to accept that he has lost, and move on"? None of this looks like "wining the game", does it?

No. I a humorous person, and I guarantee far and away more creative than you are. I also take every opportunity to laugh at the funny. You on the other hand are a humourles person...and that's probably why you aren't as happy as I am....and...squash. If you want me to be humorless about this: I side, as always, with common sense. If no reasonbale, consistent standard can be established that determines what to do about pollen, seed, etc., moving from one farm to another, then the right thing to do is: nothing. IF I created a second sun, and wanted to charge people for access, I couldn't very well sue the neighbors of the people who were paying me for sunlight. Thus, you have no right to intellectual property if you can't control it. IF there is an inherent design flaw in what you've patented or there's a flaw that is inherent to the nature of what you've patented, and that flaw directly contributes to the loss of your intellectual property...that's not the courts, patent office, or anyone else's problem: that's your problem. I also stand for doing the smartest thing possible: Montisanto should use their heads on this, and learn from open source software. Since we already know it's practically impossible to stop plants from being...plants, there's a better than average chance that Montisanto is going to be spending a hell of a lot of time and $$$ F'ing about in courts, and even the SCOTUS is powerless to stop the next 20 farmers who end up with Montisanto seeds from planting them. Rather than wasting their time and money with that, they should make their seeds open, in that anyone can use them, do research on them, and contribute back to the "project". Montisanto gets to charge for distribution, and, they get the added benefit of getting tons of free R&D from most, if not all, of the farmers in the entire country. Hell they can even direct who researches what...in the long run they will get much better seeds, have much better business relationships, and make a lot more money. But, hey, that is the smart thing....

Do terminator seeds produce seedless corn? Besides, I hadn't read the rest of the thread when I posted that...but...neither had SameOld when he posted what I am at. Tom is right: both you and SameOld are unmitigated morons. You understand, I can only work with what people actually write, right? This is a message board after all. Words mean things. Seedless corn...is what, exactly? The guy specifically said how much he loves his seedless oranges. WTF do you want from me? You want me to tell you that being interested in growing squash is a girlish enterprise?

If somebody actually knows something about guns, that only means they are a wannabe who only learned what they know from movies? I know what a firing pin retaining pin is, and I even know where it goes and what it does. Take a guess: did I learn that from a movie? Right, because lord knows, the NRA has all kinds of polictical power in...Chicago. Yeah Republicans, and their NRA masters, run that town. Idiocy. What is the ONLY difference between NYC and Chicago? NYC had Guliani come in and kick asses, put more police on the street, and empower them to literally lay down the law. Everybody cried "Racist"....until the murder rate spiraled downward, Times Square turned into Disneyland, and the rank and file democrats suddenly realized they were making more money. Then, suddenly, Guliani was a hero to all, long before 9/11. I should know, I saw that metamorphasis happen right in front of me, as I worked there every day while it was happening. However, I lived in Philadelphia, so, I also got to come home every day, and see the exact opposite policies in action. You are the one doing a disservice to this debate, by insisting that lack of gun gontrol, and not idiot municipalities, with their idiot political leaders and idiot political policies, is Root Cause #1 Where is the strawman in what I wrote above? I saw the change...FIRSTHAND! I saw the opposite right in front of me in Philly. I don't need to study a damn thing. I saw the change in Penn Station, Grand Central, Times Square, everywhere. This is the history of this, the results are undeniable. Sure Guliani pushed for control of certain guns, sure, but that accounts for less than 1% of WHY things in NYC changed. He pushed for it, but he didn't get anywhere. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that entire thing was a political ploy designed to give him some cover...while he enforced the law and cleaned up the streets, yeah, quite harshly in many cases. His policies, not gun control, are WHY things changed. Oh horseshit. The simple fact is that the gun control people woudl take away every single gun if they could. This is because, right now, they have a little fear in the back of their minds every time the try to raise taxes, or some other form of oppression. That little fear is: "someday the people might tell me no, we will not consent to this, and I will not be able to simply order the police and guard to go after them...without the people fighting back, with their guns". And I say: F them. That fear is perhaps the single most important regulator of the idiots in DC that there is. Sure a citzen militia would get wiped out by a US Army infantry battalion. But, not without minor casualties, and not without major psycological cost. You won't be able to send that battalion out again too many more times. Guns in the hands of citizens...means they will stand and fight, rather than just going along. It is the psyhcology of that...that the people may rise, and have a literal, fighting chance...that scares these socliast/fascist scumbags the most. That people are unafraid to stand...isn't that an inconvenient thing for these scumbags? Once again, it's not the personally-owned gun itself that matters. It's what it represents. It's the symbol that represents an idea. In order to kill the idea, they have to get the guns. As Gualian proved: all that we need to do is enforce the laws we already have. There's nothing lazy about pointing to an obvious object lesson and refusing to allow you to waste our time by demanding that we rehash the same old argument: when you have the obvious outcomes of that lesson right in front of your nose. Means to enforce laws....is nothing compared to the WILL to enforce laws. Guliani had the will. Lesser people, and typically liberal lesser people, do not. It really is as simple as that. If you want to look into things, the first place for you to start: make a list of the currently elected Democrats, in Chicago or anywhere, that have the complete will to enforce the laws we already have regarding guns, illegal immigrants, drugs, domestic violence, child abuse....anything other than school prayer. Not a very long list, is it?

In a grain crop? Not knowing anything about this is one thing. Not taking any time to think before you post is another. You are suggesting that we produce...cornless corn? Wheatless wheat? Yeah, i'd say trying to sell corn, that doesn't have any seeds...would present complications. You should get a job working at HHS and help with writing Obamacare regulations, you'd fit right in. Edit: I see, once again, that DC_Tom beat me to it. You go to burning man? Really? Hmmmm. As long as you're not the guy who likes to detonate propane tanks....

Yeah, really, the single biggest story where DIE could basically go wild, and not catch hell...because this is not some obscure thing, with a tenous premise...and he boots it? For my part, Welcome to Chicago. I wonder where the douchebag, who gave me a hard time when I said: "Political Corruption in Chicago is common knowledge, you unimitigated moron." is today? Hiding. Especially we are currently seeing what happens when Alderman Obama tries to do a job that is way over his head. Aldermans don't lead anything, they split their time between running around their ward calling their opponents names, and paying off the people who voted for them. Sound familiar?

I mean come on, are you telling me that in the entire history of Burhkas, no man has ever put one on for purposes? Another example of the unintended consequences when somebody decides they know better than you. And, it's another example of why "one-size-fits-all" is a patently stupid premise for basing policies on.

How could you not know? I said above: take a look at RCP's homepage. Or, watch Fox, MSNBC or CNN. Especially MSNBC...as they are incredibly smug currently, and almost giddy about the sequester, and using it to "destroy the Republican party". The overriding assumption: Obama can do as he likes, because regardless of what happens, the Republicans will take all the blame. There is no election advantage in the House, and the Democrats are just beginning to realize it. Yeah the redistricting is a problem for them, but what is a larger problem? All their voters are packed into a relatively few # of districts, which means regardless of redistricting, winning the House is practically impossible for Democrats. The Senate at this point is 50/50. But really? This is about Obama and his team's reaction, today, to what is happening today. How dumb are these people pushing this assumption, and basing all their articles about it...while Obama's actions are proving them wrong at the same time? The WH is now demanding that Bob Woodward stop stating the facts of how the sequester came about, and threatening him? Threatening a reporter? What could they possibly think is going to be solved by doing that? So, now we have 2 behavioral indications that no, the WH sees the blame as not going to be on the Republicans. Why are they behaving this way, if the assumption is correct?

is he deflecting blame about the illegal immigrants thing....already? I don't want to discuss the illegal immigrant thing, there is already a thread for that. No. What I want to know is the "conventional wisdom" seems to be that the Republicans will end up taking all the blame for the sequester cuts. And, a quick read of the headlines at RCP, show that a whole lot of people subscribe to this. Chait and his smug, "I have no idea what the Republicans are doing"....etc. If there is "no" chance that Obama can be blamed, why is Carney deflecting the blame not 24 hours after the story broke? Is it possible that: the conventional wisdom is merely hubris? If this was true why isn't Obama out delivering another campaign speech reveling in the blaming of the GOP? Why is he hiding behind "I didn't know" instead? "I didn't know, blame my employee instead"...the surest sign that the man isn't worthy of the office he holds.

I would agrue that this is a kind of madness we've never seen, in this country.

Thanks. That's basically me...at work. I think I've done better ones, especially on the football board, which is the only place where I tend to be serious. And, if I only did stuff like the above all the time...this entire activity would be no fun for me at all. Thanks again, but rest assured, I will continue to also throw out absurdity...

Re-read my post: is the driving factor the internet? Or, does the current, standard behavior, hell the very existence, of the current standard VC/Investment banker drive it? The trouble for you is: both of these things do exist. Given both of them, it's damn near impossible to imagine a scenario where some guy invents a safe disruptive energy technology, can create a working example application with it, and have it suppressed...by of all people "big business" or government. The only trouble I see in that: the government plays their usual EPA games in determining what is safe. If this new energy source allowed us to maintain our current lifestyles, and especially if it allowed us to continue driving SUVs or meant that small businesses could be set up by anyone to collect the energy, thus endangering the social justice(retarded) agenda...there's a good chance that the energy would be arbitrarily deemed unsafe. But again, that's where the internet comes in, and refuses to allow that 'unsafe' determination to be the last word. Even if the guy wanted to give the energy away for free, or, the design made monetizing it difficult such that free was the best way.....the VCs would still fund it. Why? Because they want to be the guy who opens up the chain of coffee stores NEXT to each place where the free energy was collected. They want to be the people who distribute this energy, once it is collected. Or they want to be the guy who makes the stuff used to deliver it. Whatever, however. If the business model makes sense...and if a bunch of other factors are met...it's going to get funded. Edit: Does this mean you don't want to have that meeting with the VC where he beats you with his shoe?

Yes, and the government/big business is suppressing the prepetual motion device...and also that thing/vacuum cleaner parts that takes milk, or any liquid, and creates and powers things with plasma. None of the people who believe in these myths, understand how venture capital works, or the size of the egos of the people involved. I know some VCs...and I am laughing as I am imaging the various ways in which they would tell someone from "big business" to F off, for even suggesting that they back off on one of their investments. No, you do not need a patent to get funding. Yes, the VCs will fund anything that has a remote chance of working because they are funding 30 other things, and they only need 3 of them to hit big to cover their losses on the other 27. The trouble is: it has to have a remote chance of working, and, it has to have a very high success ceiling. Renewable energy has the highest ceiling there is, right? As I said, I know VC guys. If I told them tomorrow that I had found a potential source of free/renewable/perpetual motion...any of it. I'd be in a private jet to Newark Airport inside of an hour. That would be true even if I said I knew a guy, who knew a guy...because...I've actually gotten a commission for nothing more than knowing a guy, who knew a guy. Oh I don't know, perhaps to illistrate at least one concrete example of the government not supressing commercial application of a technology it has actually used in covert operations, never mind mere theories? So does the internent. Is anybody controlling what I am writing here? The "power of the media" is nowhere near what it was. Perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton, Dan Rather or Anthony's Weiner whether things are the same as they were before the internet. JFK ran around putting himself in a position to compromise national security on a nightly basis. The only reason he got away with that? The old media. With the new media? He wouldn't be elected Senator. As I said, you simply don't know any VC guys, investment bankers, or their ilk. Talk to one sometime, that would be a treat..for me. I'd like to come watch that meeting, where you tell random investment banker dude that he's so weak, that he would be willing to throw away his 2-6 months of work, and his 1st traunch $, because somebody tells him to. I've never actually seen anybody beaten senseless with a wingtip. Come on with this nonsense. If there was a chance of making money off Tesla, these guys would have it. In fact, it's an even money bet that they have a "Tesla File", because they have a file, or an expert, for everything. I would think it can't happen again....for the opposite reason that Dan Rather thought he could get away with it. I understand the internent. Dan Rather does not. We can now choose to inform ourselves on demand...about anything at will. We are not subject to the whims of Dan Rather. Dan Rather did not take this into account, but, after 30 years of being the self-appointed gatekeeper as to what is said, and how, and what is not, it's not hard to see why he would miss it. That's the ultimate point here: if I invented a renewable energy source and posted it working on youtube...who the F can really stop that? Even if they could, what's to stop me making 10 new accounts and posting it 10 different times from 10 diffeent proxies? If I'm smart enough to invent something like that, I'm pretty sure I'm smart enough to master basic internent hygene. Edit: well there are exceptions of course, like the Scientific Ethics professor who was caught creating phony global warming documents. He was tripped up by that super complex computer science vagary: the timestamp.

I have not a single doubt as to the veracity of this statement. None at all.

Thanks for this. This is what get when we rely on English/Journalism majors to do math. This is also what we get when we rely on non business people to talk about business, economics, health insurance, health care costs, etc. Lot of that going around the last few years. Did anybody really think that they sold rounds in units...of 1? Yeah, you just stop by the ammo factory and pick them up with a Wegman's bag.