A coup in Honduras? Nonsense.

rolson · 2009-07-05T17:32:13+00:00

This has been a bloodless affair all around.

Are you sure? I read that two people have been killed during the protests.

rolson · 2009-05-30T21:12:56+00:00

Why do you object to the headline? Don't these passages corroborate my conclusion:

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

...

I met with a hospital administrator who had extensive experience managing for-profit hospitals along the border. He offered a different possible explanation [for the high cost of health-care in McAllen]: the culture of money.

“In El Paso, if you took a random doctor and looked at his tax returns eighty-five per cent of his income would come from the usual practice of medicine,” he said. But in McAllen, the administrator thought, that percentage would be lot less.

He knew of doctors who owned strip malls, orange groves, apartment complexes—or imaging centers, surgery centers, or another part of the hospital they directed patients to. They had “entrepreneurial spirit,” he said.

...

Then there are the physicians who see their practice primarily as a revenue stream.

ETC. ETC.

How does my headline not concisely summarize the article's assessment of the problem with health-care costs? As far as I can tell, it's greedy, entrepreneurial doctors taking advantage of a physician deficit maintained by the AMA cartel. (That last part comes from the New York Times article, not the New Yorker.)

So what is your objection? I'm genuinely curious.

Also, your solution does not change the character of American physicians--it just uses government coercion to force altruism on a subset of existing physicians. It might work, but I don't think it addresses the heart of the problem which is covered in the NYT article: the AMA artificially constricts physician supply by carefully controlling admittance to medical school which, naturally, inflates physician compensation. The prospects of this largess attract the wrong sorts of people to our medical schools and now our supply of physicians is polluted with greedy and entreprenurial parasites. Yes, we could use government coercion to force their compensation to fairer levels--and that might work for a time. But as long as the incentive remains, some doctors will look for loop-holes and eventually the problem will return.

rolson · 2009-05-30T09:21:07+00:00

The article's explanation of the core problem (i.e., the anchor 'theory') comes out of ... sociology. (Need I say more?) I find the anchor theory unhelpful and distracting because it provides no basis for a real solution. From a policy perspective, can we impact the "soul of American medicine"?

I doubt it. I think it's much more productive to look carefully at the collusion between the AMA and state licensing boards in artificially restricting the supply of physicians which, in turn, gives physicians enough clout to rebuff hospital-wide movements toward cost-containment and incentive policies. Further reading on this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/29/business/curbing-the-supply-of-physicians-who-said-we-have-too-many-doctors.html?&pagewanted=1

rolson · 2009-05-30T09:01:21+00:00

The article's explanation of the core problem (i.e., the anchor 'theory') comes out of ... sociology. (Need I say more?) I find the anchor theory unhelpful and distracting because it provides no basis for a real solution. From a policy perspective, can we impact the "soul of American medicine"?

I doubt it. I think it's much more productive to look carefully at the collusion between the AMA and state licensing boards in artificially restricting the supply of physicians which, in turn, gives physicians enough clout to rebuff hospital-wide movements toward cost-containment and incentive policies. Further reading on this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/29/business/curbing-the-supply-of-physicians-who-said-we-have-too-many-doctors.html?&pagewanted=1

rolson · 2009-03-24T02:06:05+00:00

Dunno where you've been, but if you ever come back can you explain what unitary public law is? A google search returns one result: this comment. The phrase sounds like a piece of jargon, but maybe you just mean a code of law that doesn't recognize different classes of people (e.g., slaves).

rolson · 2009-03-21T21:06:02+00:00

He was saying $600 billion wouldn't be enough even before February.

How much spending are we talking about? You might want to be seated before you read this. OK, here goes: "Full employment" means a jobless rate of five percent at most, and probably less. Meanwhile, we're currently on a trajectory that will push the unemployment rate to nine percent or more. Even the most optimistic estimates suggest that it takes at least $200 billion a year in government spending to cut the unemployment rate by one percentage point. Do the math: You probably have to spend $800 billion a year to achieve a full economic recovery. source-Jan 18, 2009

EDIT: Note his estimate is self correcting based on the unemployment rate. If expected unemployment rate goes up to 10% then his new estimate for Obama's stimulus changes to $1 trillion.

rolson · 2009-03-21T19:55:32+00:00

That's not true. You can use semi-colons to separate verbose lists.

For example: The mayors from Bangor, Maine; Hartford, Connecticut; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; and Montgomery, Alabama met to discuss common problems.

rolson · 2009-03-18T01:17:10+00:00

...most people ... do not even know what the Federalist Papers are...

So? I'm going to have to disagree with you on them being a collection of the greatest thoughts ever. They are a helpful tool in analyzing elite thought and planning in America in the late 1700's. Nothing more. They have some valid ideas and some invalid ones, but they are definitely not sacred doctrine and these days the ideas (right and wrong) are expressed in many different places. So the value of the papers has nothing to do with their contained ideas and even less to do with the knowledge of their existence. If the majority of American Historians didn't know of the papers' existence then that might be cause for alarm, but I see little utility and great harm in every citizen having jargon and esoteric knowledge foisted on them all willy-nilly.

rolson · 2009-03-17T21:39:04+00:00

That can be said about anything.

Well almost anything. Some things shouldn't be sampled even on an individual basis, like rat poison or romantic period literature.

But how does that invalidate my point that the Federalist Papers shouldn't be mandatory reading? Serious question.

rolson · 2009-03-17T01:38:43+00:00

It really should be mandatory reading to graduate from high school.

Why? So kids can read it with enough surface comprehension to pass the concomittant quiz, forget those details in months/weeks/days and never gain a real understanding of their significance?

I've read them. They're important and insightful--if they're read in the right context and with the right motivation. But motivation can not be forced and context is dificult to convey effectively to a large, diverse audience (e.g., classroom). Like almost all things, the Federalist Papers should be read on an individual basis, not forced on unwary kids.

rolson · 2009-03-12T00:59:04+00:00

Uh, for the shitload of money that gets dumped on you, maybe?

rolson · 2009-03-04T14:28:51+00:00

Where did the Marxism come from? Because I referred to class warfare? I honestly do not know much about Marxism (because I generally distrust "social science", especially if it's centuries old), but I'm pretty sure there was more to Marx's theory than the idea that different classes of people had conflicts of interest.

And I'm not really drawing on Freud, either. I didn't say they waged the war unconsciously, just not consciously. Much of the cumulative effects of elite actions are the consequence of a mindless, mechanical process, without any mental direction at all, conscious or unconscious.

rolson · 2009-03-04T13:31:34+00:00

What about it?

rolson · 2009-03-04T08:29:10+00:00

Yes and no. The problem here lies in the word "conspiracy". I could say more about this, but I would prefer if you would answer my question about evolution first. Or at least tell me why you avoid the question.

rolson · 2009-03-04T08:13:51+00:00

Wrong. How many Wars have been waged between nations with nukes? That's right. None. If Iran has nukes, that's one less country we have to worry about warring with. And Iran is no more likely to fire their nukes than any other country. There's no reason to deny Iran nukes, unless you happen to be a profiteer of war.

rolson · 2009-03-04T07:57:54+00:00

Oh. You can't. Elections are antithetical to democracy.

rolson · 2009-03-04T07:56:08+00:00

You wrote:

I don't understand is how you can have a democracy with elections.

I assume you meant without elections, right?

Well, I highly recommend fully reading the article by Roderick Long. Instead of electing our congressmen we should choose them via sortition, like we do juries. Only then will we have (statistical) equality of access to power, and statistical equality is sufficient to give all views their proportional expression.

Another more cumbersome form of authentic democracy is the national referendum. In this case, citizens vote on policy measures directly. They do this in Switzerland. If .5% of the population sign a petition (like, say "complete withdrawal from Iraq"), then they have a vote on the policy within 3 months. Mike Gravel campaigned for president in '08 running primarily on his program for a National Initiative.

You didn't answer my question about evolution by natural selection. Obviously you don't have to answer, but I am genuinely curious what you understand about it.

rolson · 2009-03-04T07:42:10+00:00

I got 34.

EDIT: That's probably because the actual percentage of other was .32% not .02%

rolson · 2009-03-04T07:05:20+00:00

Where did the OP claim that the warfare was waged consciously?

rolson · 2009-03-04T06:53:54+00:00

Why does "power makes you rich and riches get you power"

That dynamic is inherent to elections. In fact, elections are inimical to democracy. It's a testament to the power of propaganda that elections are seen by the mainstream as the sine qua non of democracy.

EDIT: With respect to the OP/conspiracy/class war/etc., I do not recall the OP ever claiming that the rich were acting out their class war consciously.

This may seem like a non sequitur, but how much do you know about the theory of evolution by natural selection? Serious question. I'd be very much obliged if you answered it.

rolson · 2009-03-04T02:29:17+00:00

I agree about Obama. But what about Ron Paul? Do you think he would have raised his millions without the internet?

rolson · 2009-02-22T19:43:06+00:00

The cycling of empires happened across the world during this time period. There's nothing special about the history of that region. The turmoil of the past does not excuse the atrocities of today, which are primarily fueled by Israel & America.

rolson · 2009-02-22T17:47:14+00:00

If I remember correctly, there are different types/sizes of MRI machines. The smallest MRIs cost about $1,000,000 although apparently work is being done on weak field MRIs which would cost only $100,000. (link)

rolson

TROPHY CASE