This whole story, including the involvement of Patton Oswalt's late wife and the posthumous completion of her book which led to a nearly 40 year-old crime being solved, is really something. In a crime novel, it would probably be considered too far-fetched.
This is a false statement. Please show your evidence of you claim, there several Medicare auditors that would love to talk with you if you can prove it.
You brought Medicare into this discussion, not me. Since Medicare is a government-run program, it is far better regulated than health care for the general public. This is why a "Medicare for All" approach would be a great improvement and a good first step toward universal single-payer.
If you're not on Medicare, though, everything has a two-tiered pricing system:
But insurance companies are paying for them in bulk.
Except they're not. The insurance companies remit payment when a claim is made against the insurance. It's not like they're saying, "Here's enough money to cover the next 500 surgeries".
The notion that insurance companies are getting bulk discounts is just not true.
Any Hospital that takes Medicare payments is required to charge the same amount to all customers. If they are not doing this they can become ineligible to participate in Medicare.
Every hospital in the United States gives one price to customers paying out-of-pocket, and a much lower price to insurance companies. And that applies to everything from open heart surgery to a band-aid.
You can't help you're an immature little BUTTHURT no-mind, lol! I blew you away in TONS OF PLACES and easily dust your no-mind bullshit blatherings. Just like AssFux (lol), amicusNYCL, ShanghaiBill, and so many other "ne'er-do-wells" posting under fake names, you can't help but COMPLETELY EMBARRASS and DESTROY yourself trying to argue with me while I handle you perfectly...
And if you want to try out the single payer approach, why don’t we just allow our existing government-operated medical plans to buy in bulk and negotiate prices? That way, we find out what advantages single-payer might have without having to radically change our whole medical system.
Yes, and offer everyone a Medicare buy-in, so we can compare directly with an insurance-based system.
But really, everything that's happened since 2010 (including over the past year and a half) has moved us closer to single-payer. It's the only thing that works.
There are far more people around you that own firearms. They just don't tell you, and you remain ignorant. Like a good lil sheep.
Not that many. Florida has given approximately 6% of its adult population conceal/carry licenses, and that includes people in law enforcement, security, etc. You probably don't encounter that many people carrying weapons.
Less than 1/3 of Floridian adults own weapons, and that includes a lot of people who are too zoned out on oxycontin to remember where they put them.
I don't care who made the happen. It's great news.
It's funny that the same people who believe it's too much regulation to require banks to disclose information about rates and fees are going to celebrate requiring hospitals to do the same thing. Government regulation of private industry was supposed to be bad, remember?
And, there are big problems with requiring medical providers to post prices: First, all medical providers have multi-tiered pricing. This is a "feature" of our "free market", insurance-driven health care system. The price you would be charged is completely different from the price your insurance company would be charged. For example, let's say an abdominal surgery costs $100,000.00 to an individual. That's actually pretty close to what your hospital would charge you for say, a gall bladder removal. That exact same surgery, billed to an insurance company, would be $15,000.00. For those of you without calculators, that means insurance companies pay about 15% of what individuals pay for the same service. In any other industry, that kind of two-tiered pricing would be illegal.
Second, posting prices really doesn't help the average person. Let's say your doctor tells you that you need cancer surgery for your kid, or your wife. Are you really going to shop for the cheapest price? If you actually have a wife or a kid, you know the answer is "No". Also, posting a price doesn't take into consideration what happens once you are getting a procedure. If there is any kind of complication, the price could skyrocket. If they open you up for a simple appendectomy, and they find your appendix has burst, that posted price will mean nothing.
The experience of practically every country in the whole fucking wide world has taught us one thing: If you really want to get medical costs under control, and get better outcomes for everyone, just create a universal single-payer system and let the government regulate prices. It's the only thing that works. There are no "free market" solutions to health care costs. After all, in a "free market", what you would you be willing to pay to live instead of die? If you've been stung by a bee and you'll die without an Epipen, what's to stop a provider from expecting you to mortgage your house to pay for it? Would you do it? You're not in a position to say, "Oh, I'll just go elsewhere", because you're in fucking anaphylactic shock and you're going to choke to death.
I'm sorry, but there are just no free market solutions to health care.
Japan was a monoculture until their efforts at ethnic purity almost led to their destruction in 1945.
Today, Japan is actually a pretty diverse place. You will find Africans, white people, Europeans and folks from all over Asia. They don't have the levels of immigration that most Western countries have, but they are by no means an ethnic state.
If you wanted to propose more ethnically pure states, Poland and Hungary might be more appropriate, but they're actually pretty diverse too.
As I've stated, ethnic purity is a death sentence for societies. Those places just don't exist any more, and that's a good thing.
Why would not count all of the people that voted on the bill instead of just in the Senate?
As my friend says, you specifically mentioned senators.
But even if we take the House of Representatives into account, there were 3 more Republicans than Democrats voting against the bill, but many more than 3 more Republicans voting FOR the bill. So if you take both houses of Congress into account, there are still way more Republicans than Democrats SUPPORTING the FOSTA bill.
Like with FOSTA that was co-sponsored by 27 Democratic and Republican senators, but more Republicans voted against it than we did.
The final vote on FOSTA was 97-2, and the two votes against it were Wyden (D-OR) and Paul (R-KY), so how does that work out to "more Republicans voted against it than we did"?
However, you could say that there were more Republicans than Democrats voting FOR the bill, and you'd actually be correct.
Wildlife in Africa would be much better off if there were more Western big game hunters.
You might want to tell that to the white rhinoceros. There are three left in the world today because baby-dick failsons like Eric and Don Jr went around blasting them to hell,
We're talking about guys whose "sport" requires that something die. They're sociopaths. There are better ways of managing wildlife than trophy hunting.
Execute billionaires? You sound like a progressive. Violent much?
If you read my comment, you'll see I'm specifically against executing billionaires. It would probably be a good thing for mankind generally, but I oppose it on moral grounds.
#852. John Anthony West is an author, lecturer, guide and a proponent of Sphinx water erosion hypothesis in geology.
He spoke once on a college campus where I was working and I dropped in to hear him. He was nutty, but a really nice person, and had surprising musical knowledge. I was sad to hear that he died a couple of months ago.
Any massive change in the demographics of a nation is going to have a significant impact on how that nation looks and functions.
Demographics change. It's what societies do if they want to survive. There are no pure cultures, and ethnically pure states always fail.
Attempting to preserve "borders, language, and culture" is a fools errand. After an animal has been to a taxidermist, they are seldom fertile. Look at the places in the US where there are efforts to preserve a dominant culture whose time has passed. You end up with some white supremacist jackoff stripping off his clothes and murdering people in a Waffle House.with an AR-15 after complaining on Facebook about the Illuminati and the Jews.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole story, including the involvement of Patton Oswalt's late wife and the posthumous completion of her book which led to a nearly 40 year-old crime being solved, is really something. In a crime novel, it would probably be considered too far-fetched.
You brought Medicare into this discussion, not me. Since Medicare is a government-run program, it is far better regulated than health care for the general public. This is why a "Medicare for All" approach would be a great improvement and a good first step toward universal single-payer.
If you're not on Medicare, though, everything has a two-tiered pricing system:
http://truecostofhealthcare.or...
You are, buddy. Don't let anyone tell you different. Stay strong, and never back down.
Except they're not. The insurance companies remit payment when a claim is made against the insurance. It's not like they're saying, "Here's enough money to cover the next 500 surgeries".
The notion that insurance companies are getting bulk discounts is just not true.
Every hospital in the United States gives one price to customers paying out-of-pocket, and a much lower price to insurance companies. And that applies to everything from open heart surgery to a band-aid.
I'm actually kind of hurt that he left me out.
We're not talking about bulk pricing. Nobody's doing emergency appendectomies in bulk. There's a big difference.
Yes, and offer everyone a Medicare buy-in, so we can compare directly with an insurance-based system.
But really, everything that's happened since 2010 (including over the past year and a half) has moved us closer to single-payer. It's the only thing that works.
Not that many. Florida has given approximately 6% of its adult population conceal/carry licenses, and that includes people in law enforcement, security, etc. You probably don't encounter that many people carrying weapons.
Less than 1/3 of Floridian adults own weapons, and that includes a lot of people who are too zoned out on oxycontin to remember where they put them.
OK, that's easy.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/2...
Did you read the fucking article?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/n...
The Republican Party is the party of Trump. That's the overlap.
Questions?
It's funny that the same people who believe it's too much regulation to require banks to disclose information about rates and fees are going to celebrate requiring hospitals to do the same thing. Government regulation of private industry was supposed to be bad, remember?
And, there are big problems with requiring medical providers to post prices: First, all medical providers have multi-tiered pricing. This is a "feature" of our "free market", insurance-driven health care system. The price you would be charged is completely different from the price your insurance company would be charged. For example, let's say an abdominal surgery costs $100,000.00 to an individual. That's actually pretty close to what your hospital would charge you for say, a gall bladder removal. That exact same surgery, billed to an insurance company, would be $15,000.00. For those of you without calculators, that means insurance companies pay about 15% of what individuals pay for the same service. In any other industry, that kind of two-tiered pricing would be illegal.
Second, posting prices really doesn't help the average person. Let's say your doctor tells you that you need cancer surgery for your kid, or your wife. Are you really going to shop for the cheapest price? If you actually have a wife or a kid, you know the answer is "No". Also, posting a price doesn't take into consideration what happens once you are getting a procedure. If there is any kind of complication, the price could skyrocket. If they open you up for a simple appendectomy, and they find your appendix has burst, that posted price will mean nothing.
The experience of practically every country in the whole fucking wide world has taught us one thing: If you really want to get medical costs under control, and get better outcomes for everyone, just create a universal single-payer system and let the government regulate prices. It's the only thing that works. There are no "free market" solutions to health care costs. After all, in a "free market", what you would you be willing to pay to live instead of die? If you've been stung by a bee and you'll die without an Epipen, what's to stop a provider from expecting you to mortgage your house to pay for it? Would you do it? You're not in a position to say, "Oh, I'll just go elsewhere", because you're in fucking anaphylactic shock and you're going to choke to death.
I'm sorry, but there are just no free market solutions to health care.
Japan was a monoculture until their efforts at ethnic purity almost led to their destruction in 1945.
Today, Japan is actually a pretty diverse place. You will find Africans, white people, Europeans and folks from all over Asia. They don't have the levels of immigration that most Western countries have, but they are by no means an ethnic state.
If you wanted to propose more ethnically pure states, Poland and Hungary might be more appropriate, but they're actually pretty diverse too.
As I've stated, ethnic purity is a death sentence for societies. Those places just don't exist any more, and that's a good thing.
As my friend says, you specifically mentioned senators.
But even if we take the House of Representatives into account, there were 3 more Republicans than Democrats voting against the bill, but many more than 3 more Republicans voting FOR the bill. So if you take both houses of Congress into account, there are still way more Republicans than Democrats SUPPORTING the FOSTA bill.
The final vote on FOSTA was 97-2, and the two votes against it were Wyden (D-OR) and Paul (R-KY), so how does that work out to "more Republicans voted against it than we did"?
However, you could say that there were more Republicans than Democrats voting FOR the bill, and you'd actually be correct.
https://www.senate.gov/legisla...
While I'm inclined to agree, here is the big difference:
Killing to eat is what animals do. Killing for fun and "sport" is what sociopath humans do.
The only difference between a hunter and a poacher is money. Dead is still dead.
Germany is not ethnically pure, and it's brief flirtation ended up with it being split in two.
All of them. Ethnically pure states fail. None exist, and whenever an effort arises to create one, it's always an express elevator to Hell.
You might want to tell that to the white rhinoceros. There are three left in the world today because baby-dick failsons like Eric and Don Jr went around blasting them to hell,
We're talking about guys whose "sport" requires that something die. They're sociopaths. There are better ways of managing wildlife than trophy hunting.
Having a bunch of entitled jackoffs running around Africa gunning down and mutilating big game doesn't help the situation.
https://twitter.com/PoodleMama...
https://twitter.com/MiaFarrow/...
But then wouldn't the face swap detection algorithm also be getting better via adversarial learning at spotting face swaps?
My question is, who wins, the face swap detecting algorithm or the face swap detecting algorithm trying to create the perfect face swap?
So, can the algorithm create a face swap that even it couldn't detect? I think this may be something of a Zen koan.
Well, Iran and Egypt beg to differ. Still going strong after more than 5000 years.
If you read my comment, you'll see I'm specifically against executing billionaires. It would probably be a good thing for mankind generally, but I oppose it on moral grounds.
He spoke once on a college campus where I was working and I dropped in to hear him. He was nutty, but a really nice person, and had surprising musical knowledge. I was sad to hear that he died a couple of months ago.
Demographics change. It's what societies do if they want to survive. There are no pure cultures, and ethnically pure states always fail.
Attempting to preserve "borders, language, and culture" is a fools errand. After an animal has been to a taxidermist, they are seldom fertile. Look at the places in the US where there are efforts to preserve a dominant culture whose time has passed. You end up with some white supremacist jackoff stripping off his clothes and murdering people in a Waffle House.with an AR-15 after complaining on Facebook about the Illuminati and the Jews.
https://www.inquisitr.com/4874...