Jump to content

Bat Guano

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bat Guano

  1. Seems like watcher tryna say is Torchy's changed their tortillas. 'Bout fuckin' time.
  2. As long as Trump won, nothing. If Hillary had won, as most thought she would, there would have been consequences.
  3. Yeah. The Economist's take was that the polls systematically underweighted non-college educated whites, who came out in numbers greater than predicted, and that was why they were wrong. I think that's a pretty accurate summary; that's the voting bloc that made the difference in the rust belt. But I can't figure out why this didn't make more of a splash. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump Kathleen Hall Jamieson says Russian interference was the deciding factor: Her book on it came out a couple of months ago, and I haven't heard a damn thing about it in the media, except for this New Yorker writeup. She's smart, unbiased, and knows her stuff.
  4. I've been wondering about this alot. Maybe this is a bit far afield for this particular thread, but it's related. I'm not too well versed in what's going on in Europe with the rise of right-wing nationalism and, as a friend of mine in Holland bluntly puts it, fascism. I know Russia is behind some of it, but it's looking like a mass movement; my question is, are the Russians really the driving force, or is it something that arose organically and they're simply helping it along? It seems like it's partly both - the urban/rural economic divide, nervousness about immigration and foreigners, racism - those are trends that the Russians didn't create, although they have clearly had a hand in amplifying them. I guess my question is, are the Russians really that good? From what I've seen here, they aren't; I think the speculation that some former (current?) Surly/Shaggy posters were Russkies was legit, and frankly they weren't that good at anything except stirring the pot. Maybe that's all they wanted to do. The Facebook and Twitter stuff seems like the same strategy. I found it ham-handed and dumb, but at the same time it's hard to say it wasn't effective. I thought they got lucky with Trump, but the fact is they put him in office and have to all appearances been controlling him ever since. That's a huge accomplishment, and even if luck was a factor it still exists. After typing all this out I think I've answered my own question. Yeah, the Russian trolls are dumb and ham-handed, but at the same time the GRU guys that are directing them seem to be able to find the pressure points on fault lines in the countries they are targeting, and they've been at this for a long time and they're persistent. And of course the people they are targeting are dumb and gullible. So there is a good deal of credit/blame to assign to the Russkies for the rise of fascism we're seeing around the world. I just hate to see them win; it took a lot to put liberal democracies in all the places they exist, and if they go down they're probably never coming back.
  5. How could anyone think that putting out thousands of scooters in a high-traffic urban environment, for completely inexperienced riders to just hop on and start riding with no protective gear (yeah, I know) and no training or rules of the road/sidewalk, would not lead to accidents, injuries, and deaths? It was completely predictable. I'm surprised there haven't been more.
  6. I think the whole thing is somewhat digestible if you look at it in terms of fundamental principles. 1. Trump is greedy and amoral 2. Putin controls lots of money It was always about the money, because that's the key to Trump. The Russians found a number of ways to compromise him by dangling dollars in front of him, and also pursued a number of avenues that weren't originally aimed at Trump, and he went after the bait every single time, either personally or through his equally amoral minions. Some of his minions had side gigs - Manafort, Flynn, Kushner - but the dimmer bulbs, like Cohen, just carried out the boss's orders to the best of their limited ability. There are many threads, but there's one thing tying all of them together.
  7. More people have been to Michigan than I have.
  8. Pretty sure his lawyers do, though. In case anyone thought he actually answered the questions, that is.
  9. I got them from the link in Hayden's post. It had the gross profit numbers, but not net. Link for your numbers?
  10. Wait, the drunk raccoons haven't mated? They're doing it wrong....
  11. So one large insurance company is making > $52B per year in profit on revenue of $219 B. And it's been going up by double-digit percentages every year since 2010. But that's nothing compared to the 40% YOY increases pre-ACA. That seems like a lot. Maybe has something to do with high health care costs? Just a guess....
  12. Another point is that Medicare has a passive claims review policy - that is, they don't spend a lot of money figuring out ways to deny claims, which I've (anecdotally) heard is a problem with many insurance companies. Perhaps that's what you're getting at with the 'utilization management of high cost specialty drugs' bit, but from what I've heard many times insurance companies go way beyond that to denying routine claims. A more passive, presumably less expensive approach a la Medicare may not be such a bad thing. Reduces admin costs, and as you say increases the denominator because they're paying for more care - again not necessarily a bad thing. I agree that more preventive care would be great. Seems like that should be applied at the primary care level - that is, doctors should be doing it. Seems a bit weird that insurance companies are the ones incentivizing what should be general health care principles.
  13. That's great. Until I see a robot do an entire room, including cutting pieces to fit, getting the corners right, and mudding and taping, I'm not convinced. Shit, I could hang one sheet of drywall, but I'm sure as hell not going to try to do a room.
  14. Where are you getting those numbers? Medicare admin costs are around 2%, Medicaid around 7%. Private insurers' admin costs are 12 -18%, depending on group sizes.
  15. Good post, but it's looking at the thing the wrong way around. The bolded is exactly wrong: the need for services comes first, and then the taxation to pay for them. Government steps in - or, more accurately, is created to address - when there is a need to be met. Most of the government functions listed these last few pages are pre-capitalist; the judicial system evolved from the need for someone dispensing justice - in most cases the headman of the tribe, originally, or the feudal lord later on, which evolved into a formalized legal system as communities grew bigger and more complex, and to include police and judges and the whole mess. The same goes for the post office, fire departments, armies for defense, and so on: there was a need, and people got together and created a government to fill the need. There literally was not a private entity with the ability to provide those services; any private entity with the scale to provide police or mail delivery for an entire country is a relatively recent development. How does this relate to health care? There has been a growing sense over the last several decades that the private solution is not working; it's been getting progressively more expensive, inefficient, topheavy, and is simply failing to provide basic service to all. Yes, government regulations have played a role; that was clearly not the intent, but unintended consequences do happen. The default answer to a universal need that is not being met is a government service. Medicare and Medicaid may have distorted the private market, but the undeniable fact is, they work, and they work much more efficiently than their private counterparts. People will eventually come around to the idea that it may not be such a bad thing to have a system that works, cheaply and efficiently, despite however much propaganda the ones who benefit from the current system (insurance, pharma, private hospitals, etc.) generate.
  16. So robots wielding box cutters instead? I think I'll take my chances with the tin cans....
  17. Yup. Not only for the survival of capitalism but also of democracy. You're not the only one saying it for eons; Aristotle said it 2 millennia ago.
  18. What were they protesting? Tell them to turn the phone sideways.
  19. Trumptards not twittering? That's a good start. Now if everybody else stops maybe the fucking thing will go away.
×
×
  • Create New...