Racist White Woman Gets Hosed Down

TheMasterOfNone · 1 day

I don't think I've seen so many downvotes on a single comment before. I commend you for not deleting your comment.

But I still downvoted you.

fishbert · 4 days

We got some favorable calls in game 3, but if he thinks this is why we're up 3-0 then we haven't been watching the same games.

whlabratz · 7 days

I think it really comes down to source credibility. I thought the NEJM article recently posted was very interesting. Sometimes we get random stuff from naturalwhateverhealthblog.com and it just isn't credible. I'm all for the former, though.

Reavus · 7 days

Your friend will never get laid with his setup.

maxwellhill · 11 days

What does this have to do with politics?

WillYouMaryJaneMe · 14 days

Pretty cool, thanks.

WillYouMaryJaneMe · 14 days

Not a big baseball fan here. How on earth does this happen in the MLB?

dumspiro_spero · 14 days

Yes I get that. The examples are relevant with respect to the cost argument. But the cost argument was only one argument for the policy. With respect to the other argument, the "setting an example for patients" argument, the examples don't seem relevant.

edit: And even with respect to the cost argument - not all costs are equal. I'm not an actuary, but I'd be surprised if the expected medical costs of horse riding or owning a gun were even close to the expected medical costs of having a BMI over 35.

dumspiro_spero · 14 days

Aren't all of his slippery slope examples things that would never be witnessed by a patient? Speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, owning a gun, riding a horse... these are all things that patients would never see their doctors doing. If the argument is that the hospital wants providers to set a good example for patients, then I don't understand how the slippery slope examples are relevant.

Captain_Pirate · 16 days

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this post is now dumber for having read it. I award you no upvotes, and may God have mercy on your soul.

PMzyox · 17 days

How did you pay your bills if you played the game 16+ hours a day?

Did you work during this time?

listurgh · 19 days

It's pretty awesome simply because of how forgiving it is. There is really no great technique needed. Yeah, they have crazy aeropress competitions and all that, but honestly it is really difficult to screw it up. As opposed to some of the pour-overs, sometimes they take practice and experimentation.

royaelliott · 19 days

As a Kings fan I'd like to say Doughty, but objectively I think it has to be Karlsson.

anutensil · 21 days

I don't know what's stranger, the DEA forgetting about him, or the DEA apparently keeping meth in their holding cells.

nytimeskrugman · 22 days

Models (in econ, but basically everywhere) are always "wrong", nobody expects them to be perfect, they're models. Our computational limits force us to simplify, the only question is how/what to simplify. The reason why people use "wrong" models despite that obvious fact: we need to make decisions.

All models are wrong, but ideally they shouldn't be systematically wrong. The problem with current economic models of decision making is that they are, in fact, systematically wrong. Behavioral economics is all about better describing systematic deviations from rational decision making.

bkayh685 · 22 days

You should get a stipend. You could work weekends as a pharmacist for extra money. It's not easy, but some people do that.

bkayh685 · 22 days

PharmD / soon to be PhD here.

Your PhD education should be funded by RA or TA work.

reffjey · 22 days

I use an E17 with my HD650s. I'm really happy with the combo, I'll probably get a better desktop amp in the future, but right now this is good. Plus the E17 is really portable.

Medmed55 · 24 days

This is starting to get ridiculous.

The point is that it doesn't matter where you cut, there are always consequences. Adverse consequences are not a unique feature of physician reimbursement cuts. It always hits someone's bottom line and it almost always results reduced access to care in one way or another. Whether the cuts come from drugs, physicians, insurers - there are always consequences. As I said earlier, just saying "it will result in reductions in access to care" doesn't get providers off the hook because that is almost always the case.

I'm done now. I'm not going to sit at my computer and debate our wording.

Medmed55 · 24 days

I'll be honest I don't even understand your point.

Analogy doesn't mean identical. It means similar with respect to the issue at hand. This issue at hand involves the consequences of policies that reduce the flow of healthcare dollars to providers, drug companies, or anyone else currently receiving those dollars. Both policies have significant consequences, and for similar (analogous) reasons. This is why simply saying that reducing payments to providers "will reduce access" isn't good enough.

Medmed55 · 24 days

They have the option of choosing which drugs to make and which drugs not to make. Their choices affects millions of people.

edit: And physicians can choose which insurance to accept and which insurance not to accept. It's really very analogous. The whole point was that it doesn't matter where you cut, there will be consequences.

Medmed55 · 24 days

Regulating drug costs won't cause drug companies to "opt out" of making drugs

You seem very sure of your assumptions. I'm a health economist who works with issues like this day in and day out, and yet I'm hesitant to assume I know all of the downstream effects of policies like regulating prescription drug prices. However, the economic theory behind the scenario I described is very sound, and it is identical to the theory underlying the scenario you described. That much is just a fact.

The impacts of policies such as drug price regulation or changes to provider reimbursement are really complicated and there isn't a lot of agreement, even among those of us who do this for a living (but you seem to have the answers). Honestly, it sounds like you're just saying things that you assume to be true. I would encourage you to actually read the relevant literature.

Medmed55 · 24 days

I could tell you an almost identical story about pharmaceutical innovation. Cutting spending on prescription drugs induces pharmaceutical companies to invest less in R&D, and this is in an environment where pharmaceutical companies are already choosing not to invest in making drugs that are less profitable (antibiotics, orphan drugs). Cutting prescription drug prices will reduce access to new drugs.

The problem is that it doesn't matter where you cut, it's going to hit someone's bottom line, and that person is going to cut back on whatever it is they do. Changes in provider behavior or pharmaceutical investment or anything else need to be compared relative to savings that are provided from the cuts, not simply in a vacuum.

Medmed55 · 24 days

Someone has to explain this to me. Why would I get downvoted for posting the NCS when someone asks about wages?

CoffeeFirst

TROPHY CASE

CoffeeFirst

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login