Digest for rec.sport.football.college@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics

Monday, May 8, 2017

"wolfie" <bgbdwolf@gte.net>: May 08 01:14AM -0400

"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" wrote
 
> On the con side tho - really worried about lack of innovative
> pressure/incentives to improve, much less necessary
> rationing/stratification and the inevitable huge spiraling costs.
 
We already have all that; it's why the current system is broken.
At least with single payer you can get a simple, nationwide
'best practices' and associated protections, so you don't end up
with an MRI and two or three CAT scans just because you went
to the Dr. complaining about what turns out to be gas pains....
Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net>: May 08 08:13AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 5:35:11 PM UTC-5, Some dued wrote:
> So the healthcare provider is keeping patients it doesn't need to, providing a disservice to the patient and stealing government funds, but we should blame the government for trusting doctors.
 
You forget the other perverse incentive doctors have to deal with: malpractice. If the doctor lets that patient out early and then the patient harms themselves or others, that doctor has a big problem.
 
Should we blame the government for trusting doctors? Hell yes, because it is naive and stupid to build a system that relies on the altruism of anybody.
 
Doug
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 08 04:08PM

On Sun, 7 May 2017 15:35:08 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
 
>So the healthcare provider is keeping patients it doesn't need to, providing a disservice to the patient and stealing government funds, but we should blame the government for trusting doctors.
 
That's an accurate explanatiom of why you Socialist Democrats lost the
election.
 
The government presumes the doctors ALWAYS make the right call so no
follow up is necessary. Raise taxes as necessary to support poor
judgement calls.
 
Hugh
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 08 04:22PM

>'best practices' and associated protections, so you don't end up
>with an MRI and two or three CAT scans just because you went
>to the Dr. complaining about what turns out to be gas pains....
 
The liklihood of those scans for gas pains is as likely as you ever
being in combat during REAL MILITARY SERVICE.
 
Hugh
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Some dued <theodoreward@gmail.com>: May 08 09:25AM -0700

Wait, I thot we had the best healthcare in the world EXCEPT for government, now you are saying our doctors and healthcare providers are not to be trusted and they only care about money. I'm so cornfused.
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 08 09:47AM -0700

Let me see if I can help, dude.
 
We have more people in prison than any other nation, no matter how authoritative, because Americans are just inherently more criminal.
 
We can't implement the same sort of healthcare guarantees as all the other affluent western nations because our docs are just inherently more dishonest.
 
I suspect it's because we started off as a British penal colony. Our genes come from criminal stock and we've never been able to shake it off.
 
Hth!
 
Cheers.
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 08 12:06PM -0700


> We can't implement the same sort of healthcare guarantees as all the other affluent western nations because our docs are just inherently more dishonest.
 
not true at all. You're making up your own causes and effect. Not trying to have a reasonable argument.
JGibson <james.m.gibson@gmail.com>: May 08 12:14PM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 3:06:26 PM UTC-4, michael anderson wrote:
> On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 11:47:11 AM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
 
> > We can't implement the same sort of healthcare guarantees as all the other affluent western nations because our docs are just inherently more dishonest.
 
> not true at all. You're making up your own causes and effect. Not trying to have a reasonable argument.
 
Re-read his entire post.
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 08 12:15PM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:13:32 AM UTC-5, Emperor Wonko the Sane wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 5:35:11 PM UTC-5, Some dued wrote:
> > So the healthcare provider is keeping patients it doesn't need to, providing a disservice to the patient and stealing government funds, but we should blame the government for trusting doctors.
 
> You forget the other perverse incentive doctors have to deal with: malpractice. If the doctor lets that patient out early and then the patient harms themselves or others, that doctor has a big problem.
 
 
well thats a part of it, but that really isn't what mostly causes me to keep a patient another few days in most circumstances. A lot of it comes down to a patient who would be stable enough for discharge under the most ideal social circumstances, but those aren't immediately available on the day they are suitable for that drop down in care.
 
This is even more common with internists/hospitalists on med/surg floors as well. Say they've got a brittle diabetic who is elderly and a touch demented as well. Her blood sugars have been stable enough to not meet inpatient criteria anymore, but it's going to be 2 more days until then daughter from out of state who is moving in with her to get home and administer her insulin at first and make sure things go smoothly. And home health couldn't be set up on that same day either. So what are we to do? The right thing to do is keep her another day or two to prevent her decompensating and needing readmission before daughter gets there. But since she doesnt meet inpatient criteria, I can't blame blue cross for not paying....my point was that blue cross and private insurers do a much better job of watching the $$ in terms of these things. Medicare/aid? Not so much....
 
either way a good doc is going to keep the patient regardless of whether he gets paid or not. And honestly we probably shouldnt get paid. Thats not 'dishonest' as dot would say...thats just life. The system they love so much though does a crappy job of enforcing the rules though....probably because unlike blue cross there is no cost pressure.
 
Honestly, with what I do(a ton of geriatric inpatient and acute adult inpatient) if there was a medicare for all system/one payer system in place that was mandatory I would make more money. Probably a lot more money. The outpt work I do(mostly addiction/suboxone) we don't take insurance for anyways so I could give two flips about that.....so from a selfish perspective this mandatory medicare thing would benefit me. But it's not right for our health care system....
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 08 12:22PM -0700

where malpractice does have a big impact on how we practice(and by we I mean inpatient psychiatrists and not medicine as a whole) is I order a heck of a lot more head CTs and MRIs on patients than I would without the current culture in place.
 
Once you've seen enough organic psychosis(like psychosis secondary to brain tumor) vs psychosis secondary to mental illness(like schizophrenia) you tend to see the different flavors in terms of how they present. So when the ED doc gives me a batshit crazy 23 year old who is talking to himself and seeing space ships in the room, I may be 99.8%(even if I dont have any records on him) that it's psychiatric and not organic in nature, but if I take him to my unit and it later turns out that he had a brain tumor that was causing the symptoms and not primary psychotic disorder.....thats a lawsuit that I don't want to be on the other end of. So we have no choice but to r/o that organic possibility with a head CT.
 
Internists and especially ER docs have the same clinical dilemnas x 100 regarding this sort of stuff. So it makes an even bigger impact to them.
irishranger317@gmail.com: May 08 12:22PM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 4:50:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
> What's next for Stephen Colbert?
 
He goes over to MSNBC, drops his pants and they take turns kissing his ass.
 
Irish Mike
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 08 04:30PM

On Sun, 7 May 2017 15:40:56 -0700 (PDT), "The Cheesehusker, Trade
 
>The cheesedaughter - she graduates this upcoming weekend.
 
You will be less young when your third grandchild finishes college and
the 4th is ready to enter. I'll send you my t-shirt when you get
there. Don't worry - I don't wear t-shirts.
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net>: May 08 11:55AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 5:40:58 PM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
 
> Yikes, that went fast.
 
> Off to Virginia* tomorrow to pick up the boy as he finishes up his first year, then off to the Twin Cities.
 
> *With a detour to the Tail of the Dragon to let the GTI have some fun
 
I know what you mean. The wonkette starts her senior year of high school in the fall. Mrs. Wonko is already panicking about getting her into college, even though most colleges won't even accept an application for Fall 2018 until August. Sigh, it seems like yesterday I was renting a bounce house for the wonkette's birthday party.
 
Doug
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 08 02:09PM -0500

> into college, even though most colleges won't even accept an
> application for Fall 2018 until August. Sigh, it seems like yesterday
> I was renting a bounce house for the wonkette's birthday party.
 
My wife -- a retired college professor who has helped hundreds of kids get
into schools -- says that your best bet is to go "early decision" with the
best school you think you are likely to be admitted to. Be agressive. Because
some schools will take early students that they might not take if it were to
wait til more toward deadline.
 
--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown
"Con Reeder, unhyphenated American" <constance@duxmail.com>: May 08 02:11PM -0500

> best school you think you are likely to be admitted to. Be agressive. Because
> some schools will take early students that they might not take if it were to
> wait til more toward deadline.
 
This gives a good summary:
 
https://professionals.collegeboard.org/guidance/applications/early
 
Key is that she has one school she really, really wants to go to.
 
--
It is not true that people stop pursuing dreams
because they grow old, they grow old because they
stop pursuing dreams. -- Gabriel Garcia Marquez
dotslashderek@gmail.com: May 08 10:28AM -0700

http://gizmodo.com/scott-pruitt-just-dismissed-a-bunch-of-scientists-from-1795014639
 
"On Monday, the Washington Post reports that EPA head Scott Pruitt was behind the dismissal of half of the members of the agency's Board of Science Counselors. The 18-member board oversees the rigor and integrity of the scientific research guiding policy decisions coming out of the EPA, from climate change to air pollution.
 
Even more alarming, a spokesman for the EPA told the New York Times their replacements may be representatives from the polluting industries themselves."
 
Why not? I'm sure any small conflict of interest pales in comparison to the whole "need grant money" deal that causes scientists to lie.
 
Sort of forgot how much I missed that whole bush era thing where we let the regulatees write their own regulations.
 
Cheers.
Emperor Wonko the Sane <doug@sorensensdomain.net>: May 08 11:48AM -0700


> Why not? I'm sure any small conflict of interest pales in comparison to the whole "need grant money" deal that causes scientists to lie.
 
> Sort of forgot how much I missed that whole bush era thing where we let the regulatees write their own regulations.
 
> Cheers.
 
Given the gross manipulations of data and unfounded extrapolations the EPA has been getting away with, I'm surprised he didn't fire the entire board.
 
Doug
jim brown <jimbrowndoc@yahoo.com>: May 07 11:13PM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
> 58-59k or so for pdk with no other options, but Porsches come so poorly optioned that the average new msrp is maybe 69-73 for a base. I didn't get as many options as most and my msrp came to 66 I think, but I got a little off msrp.
 
 
 
 
That's it?? Those are cheap cars. Hell, lots of pickups and Tahoes are in that same range. Really not much of a "plunge".
"The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <iamtj4life@gmail.com>: May 08 04:55AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 1:13:23 AM UTC-5, jim brown wrote:
> On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
> > 58-59k or so for pdk with no other options, but Porsches come so poorly optioned that the average new msrp is maybe 69-73 for a base. I didn't get as many options as most and my msrp came to 66 I think, but I got a little off msrp.
 
> That's it?? Those are cheap cars. Hell, lots of pickups and Tahoes are in that same range. Really not much of a "plunge".
 
It will be when he takes it to the shop....
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 08 07:33AM -0700

Well although sticker on a new Tahoe with options may get to high 60s most people don't have to pay near that. Also usage of the two vehicles is different- one more a daily driver, the other a fun/wkemd car. But yeah, I realize it's not a super expensive car. But when it's over 3 times as much as you have ever paid for a car before, it's definafeky taking the plunge
unclejr <watsona64@gmail.com>: May 08 07:38AM -0700

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-5, michael anderson wrote:
> 58-59k or so for pdk with no other options, but Porsches come so poorly optioned that the average new msrp is maybe 69-73 for a base. I didn't get as many options as most and my msrp came to 66 I think, but I got a little off msrp.
 
For that money, I would've bought a Dodge Challenger.
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 08 03:46PM

On Sun, 7 May 2017 12:10:42 -0700 (PDT), irishranger317@gmail.com
wrote:
 
>> 58-59k or so for pdk with no other options, but Porsches come so poorly optioned that the average new msrp is maybe 69-73 for a base. I didn't get as many options as most and my msrp came to 66 I think, but I got a little off msrp.
 
>Jesus wept! $66K is a lot of Guinness, Harp, Paddy & Jameson!
 
>Irish Mike
 
$66K won't buy the 2-seater or the LWB Mercedes.
 
Hugh
 
 
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
michael anderson <mianderson79@gmail.com>: May 08 11:07AM -0700

On Monday, May 8, 2017 at 6:55:07 AM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
 
> > That's it?? Those are cheap cars. Hell, lots of pickups and Tahoes are in that same range. Really not much of a "plunge".
 
> It will be when he takes it to the shop....
 
well it has a 4 year warranty....so Im good until then. And by that time surely I will be upgrading to a 911s. hopefully turbo :)
 
but yeah apparently you cant actually access the engine, so there is a 500 dollar charge the dealer puts on there everytime you bring it in and they have to access the engine. So again, glad there is 4 years worth of warranty.
 
One thing I was shocked by is how many people apparently finance weekend fun/sports cars. You would think if someone is buying a little sporty car(that isnt going to be their primary car) they don't finance it....the dealership wanted to run my credit and I said "no"(since I'm buying a house and don't want to see that credit check on there and have to explain it hehe), and so they had to verify funds in acct and I had to sign someone that said I was planning to pay with funds in acct. But that was a strange concept to me- if you have to finance a weekend car, you probably shouldn't buy it....
Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan): May 08 03:54PM

On Sun, 7 May 2017 15:08:10 -0400, Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>
wrote:
 
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
 
> Must be a really old bottle.
 
Bought it last week - I'm a really old man.
 
Hugh
Ken Olson <kolson@freedomnet.org>: May 08 01:04PM -0400

On 5/8/2017 11:54 AM, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
 
>> Must be a really old bottle.
 
> Bought it last week - I'm a really old man.
 
> Hugh
 
Are you sure it isn't 750ml?
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.football.college+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

0 comments:

Post a Comment