|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 10 2016 08:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Medicare is going to test new ways to reimburse doctors for medications, in hopes they'll choose less expensive drugs.
The plan would alter Medicare Part B, which pays for medicines administered in doctors offices or outpatient hospital clinics — to eliminate incentives for doctors to use the most expensive drugs.
The changes would have an outsize effect on cancer doctors and clinics. Medicare Part B shelled out about $7.8 billion on cancer drugs in 2014, or 42 percent of its total spending on drugs that year.
The program now reimburses the doctors or clinics for the cost of the medication plus a 6 percent fee. That means doctors and hospitals earn more money when they use pricier drugs.
As it is now, Dr. Patrick Conway, chief medical officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, called the reimbursement structure "perverse."
"We've heard from oncologists who feel pressure from their health system to pick higher cost drugs even when they are not appropriate for a patient," he said in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday.
The agency plans to test a reimbursement formula that would pay the cost of the drug, plus a 2.5 percent surcharge and a flat fee of $16.80. Source
How on earth did they justify a percentage based reimbursement plan to begin with? Holy fuck.
|
On March 10 2016 08:54 Belisarius wrote:
That seems like a very strange way to design a payment structure.
Someone was either extremely dumb or extremely indebted to pharma.
Gee, I wonder where their money is going this election?
|
On March 10 2016 09:00 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 08:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 10 2016 07:05 Velr wrote:We actually will have a vote about a baseline income for everyone in Switzerland (and the Finns iirc are planning to do some experiment?) Main reason for it: It wouldn't be much (if at all) more expensive than normal social services (facture in the whole "social" industry which would become way smaller, not inexistant because people that just can't handle money would still need help). So you basically cut TONS of buerocracy and people get what they would get anyway whiteout running thru a miriads of loops. Could this be exploited - No/much less (having more babies to get more money could be named an exploit), but the baseline is everyone gets the same no matter what. Our system right now? Well, a tiny fraction of the people are exploiting the systems, which actually isn't hard at all, but the B I G majority of people still go to work because... More money/dignity/something to do, whatever, tons of reasons  . Now in the US, with its horrid social services, this might seem even more alien than here (it also does here) but it is an interesting tought experiment. Yeah, great idea with 1.5 million destitute migrants flooding Europe every year.Man the floodgates. Switzerland isn't part of the EU, so they actually can close the floodgates.
Yes, they had the sense not to join which gives me hope this proposal will not pass.But when potential migrants hear that European countries are giving ~1700USD a month for doing nothing numbers will surge.When theres 100,000 at a border gate what can you do?
|
On March 10 2016 08:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 08:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 10 2016 07:57 Velr wrote:
So your argument is:
The system is broken so lets break it alltogether? He's saying that minimum wage is a false herring when discussing poverty and livelihood when used within a capitalist system that leans on relativistic value instead of production based value. If everyone had a higher minimum wage, the current price values will adapt accordingly and minimum wage at $15 will be the same as minimum wage at $7. Why? Because right now items are priced on demand more than its inherent value. Prices will rise continually until the same % of the population purchases the items as before. And suddenly we will have another movement for another minimum wage. He is instead suggesting a universal wage law that essentially puts a wage cap, this cap prevents inflation as people can't simply be able to afford the increased cost of goods due to demand. A higher min wage does not impact equally on the entire scale of wages, but actually reduce income inequalities (most of the effect of an increase in min wage are relevant up to 1.6 x the min wage if I remember correctly - the evolution is not heterogeneous). Plus, a general increase of the price of goods (inflation - that could be caused by an increase of the min wage, altho we could discuss this hypothesis) does not change nothing, it would actually decrease the value of savings. It would indeed have no effect on the purchasing power of people that use their entire income for consumption, the poor, but it have negative effect on people that save (because the value of their savings would decrease more) - effectively forcing investment. I'm all for changing the system by the way. Also, there is nothing bad in constantly increasing the min wage every year.
I'm not against the minimum wage increase. There's a reason Hilary is fighting hard for it, and trying to get as many allies with her on it early so that it can get pushed forward more easily upon her nomination (something Sanders is very bad at doing, and one of his many many pitfalls).
Just pointing out why there is a non-Wallstreet reason why minimum wage hikes should be heavily controlled to help both sides of the paycheck.
|
Switzerland didn't join because of their banks. But the US went after them, ended their back secrecy as criminals from all over the world kept their money there, and and now they are regretting it.
They are part of Schengen area so as long as that holds up, there can't be routine border checks.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hsbc is welcoming all of that traditional swiss business
|
On March 10 2016 09:19 oneofthem wrote:
hsbc is welcoming all of that traditional swiss business
A nice supplement to their already diverse drug money laundering operations.
|
Elevated levels of lead and discoloration caused officials to shut off the water taps at 30 schools in Newark, New Jersey, on Wednesday.
The state Department of Environmental Protection and the city's school district are currently using alternate water sources, according to a joint release from both parties.
City officials have emphasized that this is a problem with lead piping in the various schools and that overall Newark's water is unaffected.
"The problem is localized in the finite number of schools, and those are the schools that are the oldest and still have lead piping," Frank Baraff, the city's communications director, told The Huffington Post Wednesday. The city's water supply is "perfectly safe," he said.
Baraff, who said the school district and state officials are committed to total transparency as they work to alleviate the issue, also stressed that the situation is not as severe as the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
Still, there was no mistaking the seriousness of the issue. The affected buildings range from high schools to elementary schools citywide. Baraff said he's been communicating with local hospitals in the area, and that families have already started bringing in their children for blood tests.
"At this point, the main recommendation is... don't drink the water in any of the schools," Baraff said.
Newark, a city of nearly 300,000 residents, has the largest school system in the state by student enrollment. More than 25 percent of Newark residents are under 18. More than 80 percent of residents are non-white, and nearly 53 percent of residents are black.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the fuck? why didn't they replace lead piping in those schools.
|
Michigan, the land that can't handle basic drinking water. A problem we got under control like a century ago.
|
On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt.  I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that don't work in the US, or just don't work period. America has significant structural and cultural differences that preclude the implementation of many European-style solutions he recommends. It would be like doing a kidney transplant from a non-match donor without an immunosuppresant regimen.
So basically it's totally possible?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/health/kidney-transplant-desensitization-immune-system.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
|
On March 10 2016 09:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Elevated levels of lead and discoloration caused officials to shut off the water taps at 30 schools in Newark, New Jersey, on Wednesday.
The state Department of Environmental Protection and the city's school district are currently using alternate water sources, according to a joint release from both parties.
City officials have emphasized that this is a problem with lead piping in the various schools and that overall Newark's water is unaffected.
"The problem is localized in the finite number of schools, and those are the schools that are the oldest and still have lead piping," Frank Baraff, the city's communications director, told The Huffington Post Wednesday. The city's water supply is "perfectly safe," he said.
Baraff, who said the school district and state officials are committed to total transparency as they work to alleviate the issue, also stressed that the situation is not as severe as the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
Still, there was no mistaking the seriousness of the issue. The affected buildings range from high schools to elementary schools citywide. Baraff said he's been communicating with local hospitals in the area, and that families have already started bringing in their children for blood tests.
"At this point, the main recommendation is... don't drink the water in any of the schools," Baraff said.
Newark, a city of nearly 300,000 residents, has the largest school system in the state by student enrollment. More than 25 percent of Newark residents are under 18. More than 80 percent of residents are non-white, and nearly 53 percent of residents are black. Source
Hm... NJIT was fine this week... I teach there and there was no word of this whatsoever.
|
my elementary school had a bad case of lead paint. we had to move to another campus for a semester while they cleaned it
in retrospect, that was probably bad for my cognitive development since that happened in 5th grade or so and i'd been there since kindergarden. eek.
|
On March 10 2016 09:00 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 08:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 10 2016 07:05 Velr wrote:We actually will have a vote about a baseline income for everyone in Switzerland (and the Finns iirc are planning to do some experiment?) Main reason for it: It wouldn't be much (if at all) more expensive than normal social services (facture in the whole "social" industry which would become way smaller, not inexistant because people that just can't handle money would still need help). So you basically cut TONS of buerocracy and people get what they would get anyway whiteout running thru a miriads of loops. Could this be exploited - No/much less (having more babies to get more money could be named an exploit), but the baseline is everyone gets the same no matter what. Our system right now? Well, a tiny fraction of the people are exploiting the systems, which actually isn't hard at all, but the B I G majority of people still go to work because... More money/dignity/something to do, whatever, tons of reasons . Now in the US, with its horrid social services, this might seem even more alien than here (it also does here) but it is an interesting tought experiment. Yeah, great idea with 1.5 million destitute migrants flooding Europe every year.Man the floodgates. Switzerland isn't part of the EU, so they actually can close the floodgates.
a) It's a member of Schengen, and it's Schengen rather than the EU that regulates cross-border movement.
b) In Schengen you can also close floodgates under emergency measures, see half of the central European countries.
|
On March 10 2016 09:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 01:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:22 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:19 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 01:17 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 10 2016 01:12 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2016 00:57 ticklishmusic wrote:I'll try and formulate a longer post, but I've decided I really hate populism. It is essentially appealing to the lowest common denominator, in this case economic populism for those who really don't understand the trade agreements. For example, I remember hearing just the other day our confectionery industry is getting rekt because we can't import cheap sugar from other nations (the horror! and I say that half jokingly). Populism tends to oversimply complex issues, and in doing so it's just a little bit dishonest. I will say that for Bernie this seems to be born out of ignorance and genuine belief rather than dishonesty (which may not necessarily be better). An interesting bit is that Bernie came out against protectionism re: ex/im and Boeing (and also showed a pretty terrible ignorance of how taxes actually work). Protectionism wasn't executed in a way that protected the auto manufacturers though. I'm going to largely attribute this tension to Bernie not really knowing how international trade works (eek!). Would be interesting to see Hillary push him on this. I think ideally Hillary would demonstrate her grasp of the topic while conveying "yes we let you down and we're deeply sorry for that but we intend to make you whole again". I've decided to try and be civil for the most part, I'm learning from Marco that dropping the level of discourse can only hurt. I find it somewhat interesting that in America, populism is the tool of the actual left (as opposed to democrats), and in Europe, populism is the tool of the far right (i.e. the republicans). I wonder how much of populism is linked to not being in power very often (or ever). I think populism is something that's used on both extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. The Tea Party could be characterized as a moderately to fairly successful populist movement even if you disagree with them. But Bernie is not extreme by any non-american definition of the word. I would have agreed with you before the term was applied to him, which is what I find interesting. That's why context is so important. Relative to America, Bernie is pretty out there. The right/left populist cries of "America is the greatest country in the world, we should be able to do X" ignores a lot of facts. Well that's just not really an argument. If America is so out there that a normal 'world' candidate appears out of place and you can't do what you should be able to because of that, you should still want the people who have the potential to bring it somewhat less out of balance as opposed to the candidates that will keep it as out of place as it is. Your argument only works when there's a second part that says it's okay for America to be this out of place. I don't think you're making that argument. Sanders is recommending things that don't work in the US, or just don't work period. America has significant structural and cultural differences that preclude the implementation of many European-style solutions he recommends. It would be like doing a kidney transplant from a non-match donor without an immunosuppresant regimen. So basically it's totally possible? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/health/kidney-transplant-desensitization-immune-system.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
this is a "when pigs fly" thing. the analogy stands for now though. i did say no immunosuppresants, which this technically is 
they do a similar thing for cells by stripping them of antigens so they aren't recognized by the immune system, but applying the strategy to full organ transplants is really cool.
|
On March 10 2016 09:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
my elementary school had a bad case of lead paint. we had to move to another campus for a semester while they cleaned it
in retrospect, that was probably bad for my cognitive development since that happened in 5th grade or so and i'd been there since kindergarden. eek.
This explains so much. + Show Spoiler +
|
On March 10 2016 10:20 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 09:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
my elementary school had a bad case of lead paint. we had to move to another campus for a semester while they cleaned it
in retrospect, that was probably bad for my cognitive development since that happened in 5th grade or so and i'd been there since kindergarden. eek. This explains so much. + Show Spoiler +
im smurt, wat r u talkin bt u wan fite me
i know words, i have the best words.
|
I'm watching Trump's interview with Anderson Cooper, he sounds almost exactly like Hillary when talking about what he can work with Democrats on, he actually sounds better.
Univision debate is on in about 20 minutes too just FYI.
|
On March 10 2016 07:21 Plansix wrote:
I have never seen any evidence that welfare leads to more children. I was thinking long term and the areas of regulation and oversight the government would need to become involved with to sustain a system. It would be incredibly complicated and a lot of the pitfalls of that system can’t be conceived of right now.
Yes, but at some point we are likely to need this. Technology is just going to keep taking more and more jobs. Various facets of technology could do just about every job out there with the exception of jobs requiring innovation.
I can think of very, very few jobs that can't be reasonably done by technology. Cooking, farming, driving,construction, maintenance/self repair, medicine, data analysis, policing, record keeping. If true AI is possible, and it seems that way at present, then humans will be obsolete even there.
Given the insane rate at which technology is advancing, is something I'm surprised more people don't worry or think about. It seems to me highly probable that we will need to prepare to transition to an economy in which nobody, or a very small set of the population, actually works.
|
You'd be surprised at what's easy to automate and what's not.
I posted this thing a while ago here, and since it's relevant again I'll add it again.
On July 16 2015 10:38 Belisarius wrote:Just on that, here's a fun little toy that predicts how likely a given job is to be automated. The full document/paper is here. Top 20 least likely to be automated: + Show Spoiler +
1. Recreational therapists
2. First-line supervisors of mechanics, installers and repairers
3. Emergency management directors
4. Mental health and substance abuse social workers
5. Audiologists
6. Occupational therapists
7. Orthotists and prosthetists
8. Healthcare social workers
9. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons
10. First-line supervisors of fire-fighting and prevention workers
11. Dietiticians and nutritionists
12. Lodging managers
13. Choreographers
14. Sales engineers
15. Physicians and surgeons
16. Instructional coordinators
17. Psychologists
18. First-line supervisors of police and detectives
19. Dentists (general)
20. Elementary school teachers (except special education)
Top 20 most likely to be automated: + Show Spoiler +
1. Telemarketers
2. Title examiners, abstracters, and searchers
3. Hand sewers
4. Mathematical technicians
5. Insurance underwriters
6. Watch repairers
7. Cargo and freight agents
8. Tax preparers
9. Photographic process workers and processing machine operators
10. New accounts clerks
11. Library technicians
12. Data entry keyers
13. Timing device assemblers and adjusters
14. Insurance claims processing and policy clerks
15. Brokerage clerks
16. Order clerks
17. Loan officers
18. Insurance appraisers, auto damage
19. Umpires, referees and other sports officials
20. Tellers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
