patrick.net

bob2356 says

curious2 says

According to YOUR LINK, he "used total medical expenditures for each country using OECD data."

Go lower for the comment by the author of the study itself that says it only captures government spending.

"From a quick perusal of the comments on this and other sites, I find that there is no agreement as to what is wrong with the graph, aside from the comment that it only captures government spending (which implies that it should be a lower bound). I have tracked several of the links that have been proposed to provide results and have found it difficult to extract a single common truth.

The medical expenditure panel survey has 2010 total expenses as being $1.26 trillion."

You seem to have omitted "the comment that", and the conclusion "difficult to extract a single common truth" from your selective quotation. Paul Fischbeck and Dan Munro defended the chart while offering to improve it if others could provide better data. I have likewise invited you to produce a better chart. So far, you presented only partial data, which is what you accuse Fischbeck of doing, and he does not appear to concede that point. Even if, as you contend, his chart shows only government data, then that would not explain the huge disparity between the US and other countries in that age cohort.

This is much ado about very little, as you attack (as usual) without posting a more accurate total. You attack one graph while ignoring the many text links that support the same overall conclusion regarding entrepreneurial over-utilization driving higher costs. The McAllen vs El Paso article reported on a 2:1 disparity attributed to doctors' entrepreneurial over-utilization of Medicare. You seem to react defensively perhaps because your own income depends on your wife's medical practice, and you keep saying the cost problem doesn't result from doctors' salaries. You seem to ignore capital gains from shares in diagnostic lab corporations, in addition to illegal kickbacks from diagnostic labs, for example, in order to say it's all someone else's fault. Maybe you feel guilty because billing is your job and maybe you haven't figured out how to cash in the way many others do. I have tried to be as even-handed as possible, faulting primarily the hospital corporations (the biggest and most lethal revenue recipients, taking 40% of total medical spending for the whole population, and much of that from Medicare), the insurance companies, the drug companies, and doctors. You seem unable to handle the fact that doctors have a role in entrepreneurial over-utilization of Medicare, and so you keep fighting a chart while ignoring the tsunami of information on this point. The bottom line, from your linked source, is that nobody produced a better chart clearly contradicting the first; they debated some few trees, as you do, but not the overall forest.

At they very top of the list:

curious2 says

It's mainly the hospital executives and other institutional pressures that drive the big ticket over-utilization,

Thanks for your post.

Another one: The revolving door of Nursing Home to C Diff Hospitalization. Contract C Diff, kept in Hospital only a few days, back in Nursing Home. C Diff comes back again, back to Hospital. And then back to the nursing home before the C DIff is wiped out... ready to get it again and spread it to others.

Blurtman says

It's a revolt of the fading beauty leg-crossers!

Bitches finally decided they needed to cash in their sexual harassment chits while somebody would still believe they were worth harassing.

The Fox News beaver criss crossings have gone into lockdown!

"Just because I flash beaver for career advancement doesn't mean I am a bad person!"

theoakman says

I'll buy 5 oz the day it goes under $1000.

You'll likely have your chance... Not so sure you will have to wait 2 yrs. or more but perhaps.

You do have to give Kim credit, he does not limit his options.

A sprout of common sense, let's see if it blooms into something

Maher is right. Free speech is a really big deal and the left is taking very strong steps to put further limitations on it. Its sad and I'm glad Maher spoke out so strongly in favor of it.

Kim Jong Un is overdue a killing.

United should have Reaccommodated Dr Dao on a flight to North Korea and sacrificed the dope slinging deviant upon the alter of the almighty Kimfuck!

He's only paraded Ameirca's Liberal elites on his program yelled at them and called them pussies and demanded they do more for the last 20 years.
What more did he expect his pleas for facism to do?

You make no sense TPB. ASking liberal to truly be liberals (rather than moving to the void in the middle left by republicans that are now far right), is far different then asking them to be authoritarian.

Those whackos are an extreme minority of the left.

marcus says

You make no sense TPB. ASking liberal to truly be liberals (rather than moving to the void in the middle left by republicans that are now far right), is far different then asking them to be authoritarian.

Those whackos are an extreme minority of the left.

Thats really quirky coming from a guy who accepts the extreme minority of instances of police/whites/anyone but blacks shooting other blacks simply because it makes the news for a few months while politically expedient.

marcus says

Those whackos are an extreme minority of the left.

No they are not, they are the voice of the party these days (Democratic party that is). And it's huge part of why Democrats lost, because party was taken over by loud wackos. BLM started out somewhat reasonably, turned into a movement for anarchists and delinquents who hate white people. Same with Democratic party, it's nothing now but a group of crazies screaming hatred for whites, feminist crap hatred for men, and random race baiting shit. That's all your party is these days. Reasonable people have left, Maher is just pointing it out.

This is why tasers were invented: to stun the children and moms and stuff them into their seats.

Problem with Maher is he talks out both sides of mouth

Guy gave million dollars to obama super PAC

I DON'T like Maher but I like this.

Right. If they shoot a few babys in the face, they won't have to worry about this behavior any more.

Maher really impresses me. I didn't think liberals had a nausea reflex.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Ceffer says

Right. If they shoot a few babys in the face, they won't have to worry about this behavior any more.

Exactly and a lot of them, let's be realistic, will be terrorists.

Every parent of a 2yo can tell you, they're all terrorists. To annihilate them as part of the Global War on Terror, airlines offer them free passage as lap children.

Hater says

Does anyone know what the ideal temp and co2 percentage is for human life.

This is an extremely vague question. That is one reason no one has engaged.
Ideal for who?
Are you talking only physiologically or through secondary effects?
Would a huge plague that reduced human population by 90% ultimately be good for human life?

Science is settled by theory and experiment. It is not settled by debate. Debate is just what you have before science is settled, before people become aware of the speed science, and to a lesser extent when some new evidence comes along that seems to contradict known theories. Occasionally it does contradict and change things, but usually it just needs an explanation.

Science, by definition, is never 'settled'...
It remains forever in a state of flux, offering up experiment and result, but never the Final Word...

YesYNot says

Science is settled by theory and experiment. It is not settled by debate.

Fucking White Male says

Thats really quirky coming from a guy who accepts the extreme minority of instances of police/whites/anyone but blacks shooting other blacks simply because it makes the news for a few months while politically expedient.

Literate much ? I have no idea what you're saying, but I could guess. You think I'm not critical enough of black dirt bags that shoot other blacks and that I'm overly critical of incompetent cops and pussy cops that are afraid of their own shadows. It's totally wrong of me to think that we should demand cops be competant especially with respect to discharging their firearms in to citizens.

Ironman says

So explain this:

Why don't you play devils advocate and predict what I'll say. I'll help out if you get it wrong.

www.youtube.com/embed/Y_AV_V3utWM

www.youtube.com/embed/zQ7q5qH-tWU

Fuck airlines.

Ironman, your trolling is found wanting.

Hater, your question is vague. What is best for humanity is not a scientific question. What science can tell us what is likely to happen to our climate. That's it. How we assess risk, pay for the costs, etc is political. How we value damages and benefits to different people's is subjective.

Consider the fact that there is only one world and while you guys are virtue signaling by changing your lightbulbs to LEDS and driving a PRIUS, a massive part of the world is still burning shit, releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere, and dumping chemicals wherever they please, etc.

As Democratic & Republican voters intend.
Or they would stop crap like this.

Ironman says

So Apple would not find out that Uber had been secretly identifying and tagging iPhones even after its app had been deleted and the devices erased

Glad Apple protected it's users.

APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE says

Clearly, the pilot should have pulled a roscoe and emptied it into the babies' heads to teach everyone a lesson and then had the loud guy arrested and thrown into the jet intake on a taxiing plane to give the evening news something for other passengers to consider before they fuck with shareholder value

Back in the good old days of coal fired steam ships, the crew could use uppity passengers for fuel, confiscate their belongings, and nobody would make a video or even say anything about it. Happened all the time. You could get in an overbooked ship and, if you shut your damned pie hole, end up with a cabin to yourself. Those were the days when people dressed nicely for travel.

Hater says

YesYNot says

Would a huge plague that reduced human population by 90% ultimately be good for human life?

Yes! For the remaining 10 percent.

10% can stay busy shutting down nuclear reactors.

https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

When finished,they can figure out what to do with all the spent fuel.

https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/spent_fuel/

It's not.

Hater says

I'm looking for degrees Fahrenheit warmer or cooler than now and co2 parts per million? What is the ideal for humans on earth?

How is my question vague?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

Carbon Dioxide Concentration - Comfort Levels
CO2 acceptance and comfort level

temperature
odor
high or low levels of gases
Since CO2 is exhaled by people at predictable levels the content of Carbon Dioxide in the indoor air can be used as a significant indication of air quality.

Fresh supply air correlates to the indoor level of CO2 as:

15 cfm ventilation rate per occupant - aprox. 1000 ppm CO2
20 cfm ventilation rate per occupant - aprox. 800 ppm CO2
ppm - parts per million
Normal CO2 Levels
The effects of CO2 on adults at good health can be summarized to:

normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
acceptable levels:

It varies based on each humans metabolism ( energy burn rate ).
a good guess is between 60 and 78, based on the individual.

Hater says

What is the ideal for humans on earth?

The only way to prove it is if she was shown to be deaf...

inviting women to your hotel is sexual harassment? fascinating

Only because she wasn't invited back to the show.
To avoid these charges in the future, all show bookings should be issued in 3 show sets, with any late nite room invites occurring after the 1st show only...

BayArea says

inviting women to your hotel is sexual harassment? fascinating

Hater says

How is my question vague?

I've hinted at it, but maybe it wasn't clear. This is a simplification of two philosophies to make a point:
John Stuart Mill described morality as being based on what increased total human happiness.
John Locke emphasized personal rights and freedoms.
Both Mill and Locke's writings permeate our constitution, bill of rights, and thinking. These two ideas are often in tension, and a discussion of climate change is one example of this.

Let's say people in Minnesota will experience cheaper food and cheaper heating bills if the earth warms 2 degrees C. Let's say some additional people in FL will die each year due to mosquito borne diseases common in tropical conditions. Let's say that these are the only two impacts. Is this good for humanity? It depends on whether you prefer Mill's or Locke's view of what is good.

Let's say that the temperature rises 4 oC, 20% of LA (Louisiana and parts of wider la la land) and FL is submerged (coastal areas where much development exists). People in northern US states have warmer weather and live in a more 'temperate' climate. Is that good for humanity? Part of the answer depends on weather you account for the cost associated with abandoning and rebuilding infrastructure. Do you want to account for that?

In addition to local benefits, people in the Dakotas will have to account for other changes in the country and the world. Although their local climate might have improved, Dakotans might suffer financial costs due to associations with the rest of the country. The world isn't completely stable as it is. People live in predefined zones (countries). Some countries will benefit, while others will suffer dramatically due to this change. The people in those countries will not suffer in silence. They will leave and fight for different territory. No one knows exactly what will happen, but some of the risks in this post are widely understood and accepted.

One simple answer is that it would be best to avoid large fast changes, because sudden disruptions will incur large costs and political instability. Another aspect of that is that we've evolved to handle earth as it currently is, so for the people here now, it would be best not to teraform it it.

In one of your posts, you said that a 90% reduction in population would be good. This implies maybe you value the long term survival of the human species over the fate of humans living today. If that is your value system, the answer would be different than if you were more interested in preventing catastrophe in the near term (next 100-200 years).

The earth will be fine. I doubt global warming will make Human's extinct. The biggest threat from global warming to humans is probably by causing global instability that leads to nuclear war and collapse of civilization. In that case, I'd guess some small populations that have avoided industrialization will survive. As for other species, well, life is adaptable. Some will survive, others, will go extinct, and evolution will go on. Prior to all this, we will probably experience predictable large economic and social costs.

If we avoid global warming, I think that human population is on a collision coarse for some sort of collapse anyway, hopefully caused by deliberate reduction in birthrate, but more probably caused by disease. Based on my value system, I hope it is orderly, even if it is just poverty and hunger causing people to slow reproduction or just die young.

In order to make the question less vague you would have to add some constraints.
For example, you could say you were talking about optimizing food production or optimizing the average standard of living for the current population. If it is the latter, you would have to specify whether or not you want to include the cost of rebuilding infrastructure that might have to be mothballed.

In any case, it is an interesting question in that it could instigate a good discussion. I've given you plenty of opportunity to jump in and add some value, but I don't really think that is your goal.