OCinBuffalo

4chan's influence has been here for at least as long as I have been here. There used to be Caturday avatars all over the place...not over 9000 of them though. 4chan only wishes their memes had our quality, and therefore, longevity. Well, at least 3.5 of them are anyway... EDIT: And it's REEEEEEttata. (*Slap* Chowda! Say it right!) Right, because wawrow suggesting that the most likely cause of this is wawrow, is not egotistical at all. Why would anyone think that? Recycling some slight nobody cares/knows/remembers is a great way to prove you aren't overly sensitive. Doing both, in a single sentence? Moronic! This attempt at being self-defacing = FAIL! And Irony. EDIT: Telling me it's all sarcastic in 5...4...3..oh, wait, it's nowhere near 4am yet...

Lawyers are fond of calling their "services" a cost of doing business. They fail to describe that 80% of the time we only require their services as a direct result of the threat posed by other lawyers. Politicians have been attempting to create the same racket for years. Almost all politicians are lawyers. Coincidence? I have been approached more than once because politician so and so can "help" us. When asked for details regarding the "help" that was being offered, it sounded a lot more like "protection" than help. And, then we see how many companies are getting waivers from Obama care. Sounds more like "protection" than "help", doesn't it?

Uh...exit polls, demographics, and common sense says: the only way Scott Brown won was if a significant # of committed, life-long Democrats voted for him. So, if Democrats want to blame anybody for losing Ted Kennedy's seat, for any length of time, they have nobody, once again, but themselves to blame. Going forward, the challenge for the Democrats will be to offer a better option/show their policies are effective. Otherwise, incumbency is a powerful thing. Especially when we consider the # of Democrats who already voted against their party the first time around. They all have to admit being wrong about Scott Brown, so a pretty strong case has to be made, and it has to be made specific to Brown. Otherwise, how do you un-ring the bell? Also, look for every potential candidate in Virginia, but Tim Kaine, to be put on defense. The Republicans will move Kaine to the front and center, so they can whip him in the general. The reaction section makes that plain as day.

The train, and, the fact that you used to be be able to pay $25 to the airport, and get there in 8 mins, from anywhere in Center City, is one of the reasons I moved to Philly way back when. Few if any cities can beat those terms, and Philly is by far the cheapest to live in compared to DC, Boston, NYC. If you are going to be traveling for work, Philly is tough to beat. I think we can all agree that the train is great. The problem is: "when it works". Sarcasm, using which definition? The "I am going to say that it's not big deal to spend 53 million, but that's not what I really mean" definition? Spare us. What about everybody else Dan? If you want to piss away your money, you go right ahead. But if you are going to forcibly take $$$ from those of us who really contribute to society, beyond just showing up at our jobs, and then piss it away, yes, we have every right to call you an idiot and say no. Dan, that fact that you fear my blasts makes me . It is what I feed on. Dan, you were right to fear being blasted. Because, you are about to be blasted again. WE ALREADY DID THE HIGH-SPEED THING FROM PHILLY TO NYC. It's called the Acela, and it was, is, and will continue to be, a failure, at least on some level. It either doesn't go as fast as advertised, or, it breaks down(2x as likely as the regular train), or, it's not working today, and you end up over-paying for what ends up being a regular ticket, and if you want your money back/adjusted, you have to go through the trials of job waiting in line. I guarantee you that just the INITIAL project budget for Acela was at least 4X 53 million? How do I know? Because my downstairs neighbor was doing one of the senior engineers (as in mechanical, not conductor) for the Acela project. One night, albeit drinking, he told me "we have spent so much money on planning, and government nonsense, and nothing on engineering, these things are sure to break down all the time". And, sure enough, they have. Yes, shocking, we aren't a tiny, pissant nation, therefore, tiny pissant solutions don't work for us. "But...but...but..in Europe they..." <--STFU Did you know that Pittsburgh, PA has a subway? No, I'm being serious. Somebody decided long ago that it made sense for a Subway to be put into a city whose design is a cross between Dr. Suess and M.C. Escher. So, who exactly gets to decide on the definition of "make sense"?

The fundamental premise of the 2012 movie? Yeah, I saw it. So? Iron deposits have been found that point away from the magnetic north, suggesting that the current one has not always been magnetic north. Or...that all hell was breaking loose when baseballs of liquid iron were flying into rock and god knows what else over the size of a 4 football fields....meaning that magnetism had very little effect at all. The fact is: if indeed magnetism or a polar shift, is causing this weather...than there is exactly d_ck we can do about it. The only thing you can hope is that somehow Buffalo ends up 5-10° closer to the equator. (Not to much to ask) What exactly are we supposed to "discuss" about it? How are we supposed to "react"? I am sure the usual pissants here will try to blame: God, Americans, American Foreign Policy, Republicans, DoD, Secret (insert usual nonsense here), George Bush, Corporations, Haliburton, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, basically the same old recycled crap. But, in the end it will be their self-described "god", nature, who is to blame for all the chaos that would ensue. Kinda makes a good case for continuing the pursuit of controlling nature, and ignoring the pissants, doesn't it?

And they wonder how we ended up with the Federal Debt we have...and why we are so pissed off at them for creating it, primarily due to this very attitude that is shamelessly evident. I have lived in many US cities, and the public transportation problems are about laziness and ineffectiveness. You want high speed rail to succeed? First thing: get the government completely out of the picture except safety. Since when, Dan, is that your 53 million to bandy about? Do you know what entrepreneurs could do with that 53 million? What if the government hadn't taken that away, or, what if the government gives it to 3 entrepreneurs? Instead, you want to spend it on f'ing about with Amtrak? I rode Amtrak every day from Philly to NYC for 10 months. You are outside of your mind if you think spending a single additional dollar on those clowns, who failed to get me to work on time at least once every...single...week, represents a "solution". It's not a f'ing difficult job Dan, as we are doing the exact same thing, and going the same place, as yesterday. The rails part makes it even easier, as it takes away 2 dimensions, and reduces the options to "forward and back". Such a difficult decision: deciding between Stay, Forward, and Back. Back is interesting: many times we had to ride "back" to Philly because someone had put another train on "forward" that wasn't supposed to be there. Yes, your government employees that you love so much, find a way to f up their jobs on a weekly basis, and almost a daily one. But, we should give them money, cause, it's only 53 million anyway. What a clown.

You really don't understand the concept of not being able to prove a negative, do you, there Gene, "I think I know logic, but I really don't" Frenkle? The first time I saw that I thought: There had to have been a meeting where that thing was demonstrated. And, out of everybody at that meeting, nobody foresaw the potential for hilarity? Who was at that meeting? Blind people? (but even they can imagine things...) Feminazis(how often do they encounter...that perspective? This one could go the other way too, since apparently every bad thing in life comes from the male organ, according to them. Kinda interesting that something so bad is also so powerful. It might even make a person...envious. Perhaps Freud was right after all. [/OCinPhilly's Feminazi Destroyer - worked great in that town, cause it's full of them]) Sex-challenged Protestant women? (Know what I mean? Of all the religions, they are most likely to have the worst abilities. They could easily miss this one.) Gay men would get it instantly, so would most straight men, even if they tried to hide it.

The EPA's assclownery is the finest example of: "Reductio Ad Absurdum (Reduction to the Absurd): A form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence." in this thread. Treating a dairy farmer like a big oil company? How is that not the exact definition of "following logical implications to an absurd consequence"? Gotta love it when Gene provides the means of his own demise.

What? LA accurately described the Jimmy Carter/Iran history. How is that dumb? How is it dumb to point out that Obama has been in every way, shape, and form, Jimmy Carter Round 2 with respect to PUBLIC foreign policy? Privately, Obama missed a perfectly good chance to help the Iranian people with their uprising, and has gone around the world apologizing as though we have done something wrong by holding psychotics and their supporters accountable. Unfortunately, ALL the evidence points to the the supposition that Obama WILL pull a Carter, and we WILL have a new psychotic state on our hands. PataJoe: there were 30 years of the Shah before Carter got into office also. That doesn't excuse his utter lack of competence and courage when he was in charge. 30 years of Mumbarak will not excuse Obama if he follows Carter's weakness. Deal with it.

You believe Al Gore, but... you aren't trying to prove anthropogenic global warming? Al is. Do you only believe him when he's not trying to prove man-made global warming? At what time in the day does that occur? You want to subscribe to Al's religious views, but only if they don't try to prove man-made global warming? And you are the one who comes down on the irrationality of religion? Logic flaw #1. Your lack of knowledge does not mean there is a reasonable explanation. It also doesn't mean that the "global warming cult"'s data is accurate. Basically, you lack of knowledge means nothing, to anyone, and has 0 bearing on anything. So how is this an argument? Logic flaw #2. Moreover, we aren't the ones putting forward a causal relationship as a certainty(man -> Global Warming). Al Gore, the person you have stated you "believe", is. Therefore it is not for us to prove a f'ing negative = man-made Global Warming doesn't exist. Rather, it is for you to prove that it does exist. Logic flaw #3. 3 strikes, you're out, again, Gene. When you are inevitably questioned, because that's what real scientists expect, you don't get to suddenly claim that we must take your answers on faith. That's religion, and you are supposed to hate that, right? A lot of people missed this "uh...it's also getting warmer on other planets too, retards" story. I think it got lost in the shuffle with the Climagate thing taking precedence. It is by far the more important story.

Yeah, he misspoke. So? Yeah, it's dumb, but not that big of a deal. Of course, if Bush had said this....well, suffice to say Frenkle would be all over it. Of course, if Palin had said this....oh man, hedd wouldn't be able to stop posting about it for a solid week. That's because neither of them will admit their own massive hypocrisy, mostly because they don't realize it exists, mostly because of one of the many flaws in liberal/progressive thinking: "We are educated, so whenever we make a mistake, it's just a mistake. However, when someone on the right misspeaks, it's proof of stupidity!" That's how they justify their hypocrisy. Entertaining, isn't it? And you wonder why I ridicule them.... Moving on to his point: Schumer is seriously mistaken if he thinks people aren't far more interested in a shake up of DC, than if granny goes without a check for a few weeks. He doesn't seem to get the difference between 1994 and today. 1994 was about a well-formed set of intellectual arguments delivered consistently. 2010 was nothing like that. Instead, it was about "stop the bastards, now!" Many, many Democrats, like Schumer, have misled themselves into thinking this is about left ideas vs. right ideas. It isn't. This is about killing off left ideas, and/or reforming them. The right doesn't have to have any ideas to engage in this debate because the debate is about what to do with old/new leftist ideas. If the government shuts down, it will be effectively framed as: "These are the pains of dismantling the old system that we were sent by the voters to dismantle."

Yeah. Anyone who watched the video, and has a basic sense of the subject, gets Maher's failed attempt at a point. The problem is: the point is either moot, because neither football or baseball have any bearing on the real world in terms of economic models, or, the point is irrelevant, because we already have something that enforces competition in the real world: anti-trust laws. From which, incidentally, bot football and baseball are exempted. As if we needed another reason why this comparison, and then the extrapolation, is faulty at best. In all cases, nothing supports socialism. I guess what many are trying to say is: yeah, we get the comparison, and it's valid, if you stick to baseball/football. The problems start with Maher's extrapolating that comparison straight to Olbermann-land.

Regarding my solution? I keep getting bothered to get a patent. So, no, that's new. Regarding what I have found in health care? Yes, they aren't new. The data is available for anybody with the ability to collect and objectively analyze properly. I am certain that many health care professionals have had these ideas. I am also just as certain that health care people ask this: Because either they have no idea how, or, more likely, because they suffer from George Costanza disease: You need small sets of specific data delivered accurately and instantly, able to be changed in real time, and constantly evolving with the care process and the patients. Meanwhile, the hospital needs a real workflow system, so that it can determine and meet your ever-changing needs, and the patients needs as well. You do the opposite: you go dump 10 million on one more antiquated EMR system, which is about massive sets of data, mostly distributed, often inaccurate, rigidly structured, requiring time and hassle to retrieve. Workflow? Please. The EMR companies can't even define it properly, much less build it. :wallbash:

Buddy, I have been posting this stuff for years. New to you doesn't mean much.

No, you are misunderstanding me, and it's nobody's fault, because I didn't cover that part. You can file this under: "Retards on this board complain when something complicated takes more than one sentence to explain" Regarding this specific issue, wrt emergencies: No different than right now. Wrt: outpatient, physicals, etc....That would depend on what the county wants to do, and that mostly depends on the care resources available. 1 of a million examples: rural counties may decide to sign up with cardio unit in another county, and negotiate reimbursement rates. There could be a 1k reasons to do that, and another 1k not to. But, ultimately, it becomes that county's problem. And therefore, NOT the entire country's problem , poorly adjudicated by legions of government employees, none of whom now better what is best for that county than that county's doctors and nurses, and all of whom try to solve these problems with a top-down, uniform, non-"solution". (See: Obamacare and xref micromanagement.) Basically the county is allowed to negotiate with whatever provider they choose. Ultimately, this creates competition amongst counties and providers. Good. If you want to live in lavish health care county, you can, and you can pay for it. Each county can set up its own rules for residency terms, etc. If you have a pre-existing condition, and want to move, your new county may want to hit you with higher rates, or a one time fee, but they can't deny you. That's also where the 10% state contingency fund kicks in. And, that's the only role the state should have: settling disputes between counties, or between individuals and counties.

This is moronic. What a surprise that this comparison is made by Maher, a moron, and co-opted by Buftex, another moron. The "business" of football? In real business, we don't plan to keep meeting our competitors every week this year, next year, every year. In real business, we want to crush them now, and never see them again. Football's "business" is about endless competition, with no real winner or loser as defined in real business. In football, not only do you want to see your competitors again, YOUR entire success is predicated on seeing them again. In fact, the only reason you exist at all, is because of your competitors. If football was real business, the Patriots and the Jets would have been gone by 1994. Only a moron doesn't see the difference. But, then again, we are talking about Buftex here, aren't we. Socialism may be good for Football, but Football is not real business or real life. Socialism, as overwhelmingly evidenced by history, economics, and results, when applied to the real world...is patently retarded.

Such a mythical beast exists! The County Health Department/Commission. Each county should be allowed to decide what it's citizens are entitled to. I can think of no better way of reaffirming the doctor-patient ideal. Since all the local docs will know what the other local docs are doing, this is also a great way of establishing accountability. But also, ensure that the county commission that oversees this is mostly doctors and nurses. Both you and Doc want doctors to regain their power, this is how. Create a SMALL state entity for appeals. Make each county pay 10% of their revenue into a catastrophic fund, so that a rural county isn't bankrupted by a massive accident for example. Commissioners are elected no different than local judges. You want to fix fraud? This is how. Moving it to the county either wipes fraud out, or, makes it a local issue, instantly. The worst possible way to fix fraud is to nationalize health care. Medicare proves this on a daily basis.

No, I fully realize that. The point I am making should be clear: if Obamacare is allowed to live, the necessity for efficiency will rise exponentially. You may be efficient now, but are you "Obamacare efficientTM"? So then, why the need for a massive waste of tax dollars to staff up an already bloated HHS? Hey, there's no doubt that sales guys are a waste of money. In all seriousness, let me take off my persona for a second. To the casual observer, what you wrote seems to make sense. Yes, all of the big buildings, luxury boxes, salaries, commissions, etc., that I found at both the large insurance companies that engaged me, are empty dollars in terms of providing care to patients. But, in truth, this is a lesser of 2 evils argument, and Medicare is by far the greater evil. What if we added fraud to the % cost of Medicare's administrative costs? What if we actually looked a say, a skilled nursing facility, and looked at how much private pay revenue is used to make up for the short falls in Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement? The "% of administrative cost of Medicare" thing is a myth, if you take an objective look at ALL the data.

So what is that....5 times I ask you for...what you already posted...and now, you finally get it? Jesus. I honestly wasn't sure if you were going to get that...it was already funny, would have been even more funny if you went for round 6. For a little while this afternoon I honestly thought you might not have actually realized that what you posted was in fact an analysis. Lulz. And, btw there is no legal or historical component in that analysis. You don't describe what the basis you defined is predicated on, or what justifies it legally or historically.

FOX should hire him whenever his non-compete expires. No, I'm being serious. Can you imagine the ratings for Hannity/O'Reilly/Greta, the nights he went on as a "Fox News Contributor"? The only problem is: I'm not sure he could go toe to toe with any of them. And, I'm not sure he could actually contribute anything, or do it better than Juan Williams or Bob Beckel or Kirsten Powers. If nothing else, it would stick in the craw of Media Matters, and that alone makes it worth doing.

What you don't seem to realize is that not only do I understand how many patients you see(85% Medicare, you better be), this variable is one of many we track, and tweak in simulations, as it does a fine job of stressing the system. In fact, I am counting on the # of patients/doc going up over time, especially if Obamacare isn't removed. Makes a great case for "guess you need to get more efficient then, don't you?". As I have said numerous time, Obamacare personally benefits my group massively, but we are still against it because all it does is obfuscate the problems. What you also don't seem to realize is that pissing around talking about %6 cost, vs. 10% cost, administratively, is insignificant, when we talk about the sheer amount of wasted $$$ just in scripts...as you just got done defining. The amount of wasted food alone at most hospitals, extended to Medicare's level, makes your point silly. Of course Medicare costs are going to be lower by volume, they insure 300 times the people as the average single state insurance company. They have no competition, and a forced revenue stream, which means they don't have to sell. And, they have an unlimited supply of capital if they go over budget. You are talking about a Walmart that doesn't have to spend a nickel on sales guys, and then asking why mom & pop have a higher cost per unit?.... No, because if I do that, the whining about the length of the post will begin. It's not just doctors, it's everybody. And, the example I gave earlier is right out of the database. Yes, we did find a $250k waste of money that easily could have been avoided had everyone known the effect prior. That is 1(one) example. We have found hundreds of thousands.

Ok, after a search, here are the "thoughts" that you ascribe to yourself: "Because you have more disposable income and can afford to invest it more efficiently. The actual percentage of taxes (all taxes) paid after a bare minimum cost of living is deducted from base salaries make it far closer percentage wise than people who only talk about the "fifty percent who do not pay taxes." Again: Please give us YOUR analysis of the basis for progressive taxation. You may use legal or historical concepts.

No, I am the one who illustrated the attitude I have encountered far more often than not. We don't extrapolate a damn thing. This is about accurate data. We have it. Organizations really don't know, and we prove it, on a consistent basis. I find that health care managers are consistently duped into making bad decisions, based purely on anecdotes, or what they "know"(read: emote). I find that their people make all kinds of goofy decisions(i.e. hiding supplies in the false ceilings before the weekend, I get that one a lot) in an effort to deal with the fact that nobody truly has a grasp on WTF is happening at (insert health care organization here), big picture, or at any given point in the day. But I don't. You don't get any more inside than us. You don't get a more accurate picture of what is actually happening on the inside than us...so spare me the platitudes please. And, ever heard of "can't see the forest for the trees"? Yeah, big time. Sure. But, I'm not here to take a macroeconomic/Washington DC approach. How's that working for you? Rather, I am doing the opposite: creating a growing bottom up position based solely on unavoidable conclusions based on incontrovertible data. Sooner or later, the data we have will be statistically significant. When it is, the beatings will commence, starting with the regulators. I started on this 10 years before Obamacare, and I assure you, it has nothing to do with the root causes we have been identifying and going after. We agree because, based on the work I have already done, Obamacare does NOTHING to address the issues we have identified years ago. If anything it either has a negative effect, no effect, or simply moves the issue from one place to another. You aren't getting what I am saying. "The organization" is everybody, because, it is. The janitor, the nurse, the housekeeper, everybody has an effect on everybody else, and all of it varies. In addition, the organization doesn't make widgets, i.e. not universal outcomes. The point is: we all have to do administrative tasks, and no one is above it. The next point is: I should have said "review other people's time sheets". Believe me, this is a waste of my skill set, but I do it, and I don't complain about it. The problem is: nurses AND doctors aren't trained as managers, of anything. Many attempts have been made to remedy this. Most have failed.

But that's the trouble Booster: those aren't YOUR thoughts either. We can find everything you post in headlines or sound bytes. Or, more typically, we find it in what somebody else already posted here...which you read, and then say you "agree". Talking to you is like talking to a newswire, or, on the internet, a web service. Let's try this again, please give us YOUR analysis of the basis for progressive taxation. You may use legal or historical concepts. The fun part is you can't, and my character has 0 effect on that. Unless, in real life you aren't a low-level thinker. See, I can change how I behave, but you are stuck with stupid. I work? I am simply explaining so that you understand why I can't care about your "thoughts".

Yes, Booster, you are not in on any joke, you ARE the joke.