Micahel @ 19, Sam @ 39:
The difference in overhead between private and public plans exists, but only becuase of accounting for the costs.
Medicare admits that it has a 7.5% fraud rate, and most believe it is actually much higher, as much as 10% (so that the actual winner in overhead costs are private plans.) That means that some of the administrative costs of private plans are offset by fraud in government plans - private plans will spend up to $1 to prevent $1 in fraud, as they should. Government clearly does not.
They also pay less than market value for heath care services, so basic economics tells us that there will be implicit rationing, though assumedly only of low value medical activities. This is a cost - we get less service under this system, partially in exchange for the lower overhead. (This doesn't mean lines at the hospital. It means not covering certain things that are now standard, like ineffective treatments, or low value added, high cost services in hospitals, like extra day stays in the ER for noncritical patients or 3 day stays after birth for healthy mothers.)
It's complex. Very complex. It needs to change. Hopefully soon. But we should still tread very carefully when doing so.
Janet@36:
Or the official site:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsus/
The idea that you would be 'due' for a large earthquake isn't a very exact one - you're better off with the Gutenberg-Richter law - earthquake sizes (using the MMI scale) in a specific area are distributed so that over a given time frame, there are approximately 10 times as many earthquakes of magnitude X or greater than there are EQs of magnitude X+1 or greater.
By looking at the incidence of low-magnitude earthquakes in your area over a decade or so, you should be able to find the approximate frequency of large ones. (I've recently been training as an expert in such things, as it turns out.)
John@57, Mark@59:
There has been a lot of speculation about this, and clearly some of it would parallel health regulations that would be sensible. However, don't forget that there is a lot that wouldn't work that way - regulations that would increase health risks, specifically those regarding what was done with animals in the temple. Additionally, kashrus has changed from what it was 2,000 years ago, and so many of the "prohibitions" that we talk about are more recent Halachic innovation - in a practical sense, if not so much on a religious sense. For instance, the "prohibition" of not using the same dishes for meat and milk is not mentioned in early sources, and probably wasn't done. According to a strict reading of the law, it probably isn't necessary even now. (Strict reading, not strict interpretation.)
Re:david Harman @ 21 - The other bit mentioned - not eating what "they" eat, is not a taboo against eating with non-Jews by default. In reality, the idea that it is "separatist" it is actually specifically formulated as such. The less followed (deprecated, perhaps) portions of Halacha specifically forbid the eating of any food cooked by non-Jews. This was also, in many ways, a function of self-defense. If they are kept from eating with you, you cannot absorb their ideas - a terrific memetic defense mechanism.
On the double posting issue, I was thinking about it. You'd want the preview page to come with an identifier, from a space large enough to prevent almost all collisions, (or an actual pre-post count of each comment previewed) and then have the posting engine check that something hasn't already come in with that identifier already.
Theoretically simple, but I've never worked with MT, and implementing it may be anywhere from easy to functionally impossible without re-writing the entire posting engine.
YAY! Hooray for you.
Dave @ 35:
I thought that most DB's have pretty good indexing that can be turned on easily, or by default. I haven't been a DB admin, so I'm not really clear on it, but I thought one would assume this was true before.
The question I have is: what was redlining? Was the processor maxed out, or was it a memory issue? (Or both. It could just be a single badly written bit of code looping when it shouldn't.)
Jim @19, Fragan@16: I think there is a bit of a straw-man argument there.
(I've heard it argued much better than this, but I find it hard to replicate becuase the mindset is so far from my own.) The real concern is that marriage is supposed to be a religious decision, which is sacred. To the extent it is removed from the people's naive conception of marriage, there are questions raised in everyone's mind about whether there is a unique bond created in a marriage. By destroying the naivete of the general populace, you make marriages less likely to succeed, and weaken society.
Of course, it's a ridiculous argument anyways, and ties in to the fundamental one: Belief instead of knowledge. Their mental realities are fragile becuase their ideals don't correspond with the way the world works, and they need to do everything they can to protect these delicate structures. They want to remain ignorant of the fact that most marriages end badly, ignorant of the fact that what they think of as love is to a large extent neurochemical, and that there is a reality-based community out there. They want to believe instead that what they have is unique, and that because God intended the couple to marry.
Sarah @18 - You're right that most actual libertarians are anti-government interference in marriage. I tend to find it has more to do with idiots saying that they are libertarian because even conservatives don't like being associated with republicans. Politically on the spectrum those people are republican.
Also, I find that I am unconcerned about states legalizing gay marriage at this point. It will happen, it is becoming more and more accepted, and social change always forces legislative change, over the long term. My real concerns are that the political capital of the progressive community is being wasted on what is currently a divisive issue that will solve itself instead of being focused on real issues like health care or the abstinence gag rule. We're wasting our time and energy.
Xopher @ 128
I have it going in three different tabs right now, with overlapping music. I love this. I now have something to do today.
Caroline @ 67:
Regarding the Flu Tests, it was explained to me by someone at the CDC that they tested locally for Influenza A. If it's A, depending on the facilities available, they culture it, and then they can identify the strain. If it's an identifiable strain, then it isn't H1N1. That test is done locally in large hospitals, but may be sent away to the CDC if they can't run the tests. If it isn't any identifiable strain, the CDC confirms H1N1, or they find a new strain (which is much scarier, since flu can recombine when there are multiple infections in the same host.)
This may be why there is a couple of days vs. 2 weeks difference. If it's identifiable, it's pretty quick. The H1N1 test may take longer, but I think the CDC was identifying the virus in a much shorter time frame than 2 weeks. Of course, they may have slowed down with the higher volume of cases recently.
Dave @ 18:
That was wonderful. Thank you. I have a collection of his poetry, (including this poem, I see) sitting in my to-read pile. Thank you for pointing it out.
As sad as this is, on some level it restores my faith in humanity. It isn't that journalists are out to destroy the truth, it's that they are too dumb to understand why what they print is false.
I'm just not sure how this problem is fixable. We need more introspective, intelligent people in journalism, just like we need them everywhere else. How does that sort of thing get taught?
It's not reasonable, it's politics.
I have mentioned this before, but I'm an orthodox Jew. That gives me access to a different group of people than most of the regular readers of this blog. I've had this discussion with several groups of people, and the issue is a combination of (unthinking) conservatism and lack of knowledge about drugs.
As strange as this seems in today's media saturated and drug accepting culture, the principle objection of these people is due to the narrow media channels they allow themselves. They do not watch TV, do not read mainstream newspapers, and they will vote in droves against any type of legalization.
I would imagine the situation is similar to that in the bible belt - and if the Republicans don't have gay marriage or abortion as a powerful enough wedge issue, the "think of the children" factor of legalization, reasonable or not, will stop any centrist politician, or values oriented democrat, from supporting it.
I want to know about the 12 minutes in mannheim - I always kind of wanted to visit. Any impressions, other than being in a rush?
I got a call earlier today - I finally have a friend who wants to see it with me. 10:10 tonight somewhere in Queens. (He has the car, so I don't need to remember where.)
I'm incredibly psyched, but I will force myself to wait until I see the movie to see the opening (four and a half hours to go.)
Also, why is by blog URL the only thing I can type correctly on my first attempt every time?
The design problem with these cars is manifold, and while the law of unintended consequences is relevant, we also have the ability to introspect and redesign. We know that cars could be equipped with these sensors in the back seat. Or we could have a device that could disable the front seat airbag when a car-seat was there. A modification of the seat-belt lock used for car-seats could be modified to also disable the airbag, which would mean that back seat airbags could be developed in a way that would be safe for children.
Engineers are not required to take classes in ethics. I don't understand why.
Oh. Right. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The problem is that what they did is already clearly illegal. The FTC can prosecute under the FDCPA, §807 (2) (A), §808, (1), punishable by damages plus up to $1000 more, at the discretion of the court. (FDCPA, §813) I'm not sure if individuals can sue normally for damages.
That's what I get for spending a summer working at the FTC, even though I don't actually know law. If anyone has any questions, talk to a lawyer - ones who know this subject are in demand, but if you have a lawyer friend who can let you know if you can sue under the FDCPA, they should give you an informal opinion about what to do. Small claims court against large corporations is generally an easy way to get a quick verdict or a settlement.
The real issue is that for class action suits, punitive damages is limited to $1000 per named plaintiff, and maxes out at the lesser of $500k or 1% of the lenders net worth for all other affected individuals - corporations have a huge incentive to fight these cases, and the damages if they lose are low enough that it's not worth it for lawyers to pursue them for the years they would take in court to resolve.
That is what the FTC is supposed to be doing, if they were properly funded to pursue the cases they should bring, and actually didn't need to deal with congressional oversight that effectively neutered them in the 80s after complaints that they were too zealous about enforcing truth in advertising laws. Oh well, maybe Obama can fix consumer protection law enforcement one of these days.
I wonder how clear it is to the general public that the mistake was Roberts, not Obama. (I didn't know until I pointed out to a friend that Obama screwed up, a friend who then corrected me.)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 21 |
| 2008 | 19 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 48 |
Total: 89 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by David Manheim:
Show all comments by David Manheim.