Capco

I'm really digging this tree metaphor. And tbf, bullschit is a good fertilizer

Right. The reason I shared that article is because some posters are getting caught up over corporate law in a discussion about healthcare. I mentioned the fiduciary duty of a board of directors as a way to support the notion that large corporations "myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors." The last article I posted offers a different explanation for the same corporate behavior, but the fact is that regardless of the source of that behavior, that behavior remains, and it is specifically that behavior which doesn't belong in the discussion of people's healthcare. Some posters are failing to see the forest because the trees are getting in the way I shouldn't have planted that fiduciary tree lol.

Here's a snippet from another article that takes a different view, which some of you may find more palatable than the explanation I am offering: So, where did the mistaken idea that directors must maximize shareholder value come from? The notion is especially popular among economists unburdened by knowledge of corporate law. But it has also been embraced by increasingly powerful activist hedge funds that profit from harassing boards into adopting strategies that raise share price in the short term, and by corporate executives driven by “pay for performance” schemes that tie their compensation to each year’s shareholder returns. In other words, it is activist hedge funds and modern executive compensation practices — not corporate law — that drive so many of today’s public companies to myopically focus on short-term earnings; cut back on investment and innovation; mistreat their employees, customers and communities; and indulge in reckless, irresponsible and environmentally destructive behaviors. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

Of course it doesn't have to mean that. But again, in practice, that is almost always what it boils down to when referring to for-profit corporations. Think of it as the difference between de facto and de jure.

Afaik, there is no specific statute that says this, but that doesn't make it any less true in practice. "Most large businesses buy their corporate charters from the state of Delaware. And the law of Delaware is clear about corporate purpose. The chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, Leo Strine, put it simply in a recent law review article: “Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end.” In cases where directors have acknowledged sacrificing shareholder interests for other groups, Delaware courts have found those directors violated their fiduciary duties. But is this standard for corporate governance — shareholders over all — good for society?" https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/its-law-but-it-shouldnt-be "Directors must make stockholder welfare their sole end." I dunno about you, but I buy stock to make money.

So grumpy. Have you eaten today?

Thanks for your patience, although I'm trying to be civil. I did read that. Those appeals take time. In the meantime, someone could die (and people have died) simply because a doctor who never met them is working on his/her next pay raise and decided to deny their claim for a necessary procedure. Again, it's not as bad now since the ACA was passed. But that's why protections like the ones the ACA put in place need to be carried over into our next healthcare law.

During the testimony, she clearly stated that she received financial compensation for denying care to people who later died (i.e. a necessary procedure). When shareholders expect profits from a company that makes medical decisions, her actions as medical director will invariably be repeated by any medical director for any for-profit insurance company in lieu of proper regulation. Obviously the shareholders don't talk directly to the medical directors, but that's a cute thought. Again, if and when the choice is between acquiring more profit or giving more care, the insurance companies will go the route of profit every time. I'm not sure what's so hard for you to comprehend considering your erudition.

I agree that unnecessary procedures should be avoided for the reasons you stated. However, when bonuses, positive performance reviews, and raises are in direct proportion to how many claims you successfully deny for whatever arbitrary reason, the people needing that healthcare literally die. She said that was essentially her career for about 30 years. I believe that to be pretty pertinent information. I wouldn't want someone to deny me care just because it means they get a fat Xmas bonus. Correct, but there is no personal financial motive for the person doing the decision making in Medicare/Medicaid (at least as far as I am aware).

Apart from the passing of the ACA, what has changed in the past 21 years that makes this testimony irrelevant?

Oh of course. Don't take it from some random poster on the internet. Take it straight from the horse's mouth of a former medical director for 3 separate firms: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/testimony_of_wendell.php The situation really can't be spelled out any clearer.

When the corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders (as is the case for insurance companies), it is the same thing.

Any excuse not to read is a good one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/3pv8bh/is_it_really_true_that_corporations_are_legally/ It's all laid out there better than I have the time to write about.

Should markets determine who receives healthcare and who doesn't though? Incorporated insurance companies are required by law to make as much money as possible, and the less care they give, the bigger their profits are. That's a great system for making money, but a poor system for providing healthcare. As far as doctor shortages, the answer to that is to subsidize the higher education disciplines that are in demand (and also to think twice about giving money to people getting a communications degree).

I kind of jumped into the discussion so I'm not sure what Baskin is all about. I just thought it would help the discussion in general. The point I really liked in that quoted conclusion was the difference between social spending and healthcare spending between the US and various other countries. The report explained how that spending on social services leads to healthier outcomes for populaces outside of the US by virtue of the fact that these social services essentially equate to preventative care. Likewise, I'm a big fan of the concept of "accountable care organizations" and the like. There are certainly multiple factors as to why healthcare in the US is the way that it is. But there's nothing wrong with taking good ideas from someone else and making them our own.

Health care spending in the U.S. far exceeds that in other countries, despite a global slowdown in spending growth in recent years. At 17.1 percent of GDP, the U.S. devotes at least 50 percent more of its economy to health care than do other countries. Even public spending on health care, on a per capita basis, is higher in the U.S. than in most other countries with universal public coverage. How can we explain the higher U.S. spending? In line with previous studies,19 the results of this analysis suggest that the excess is likely driven by greater utilization of medical technology and higher prices, rather than use of routine services, such as more frequent visits to physicians and hospitals. High health care spending has far-reaching consequences in the U.S. economy, contributing to wage stagnation, personal bankruptcy, and budget deficits, and creating a competitive disadvantage relative to other nations.20 One potential consequence of high health spending is that it may crowd out other forms of social spending that support health. In the U.S., health care spending substantially outweighs spending on social services. This imbalance may contribute to the country’s poor health outcomes. A growing body of evidence suggests that social services play an important role in shaping health trajectories and mitigating health disparities.21,22 Additional cross-national research is needed to better understand the relationship between social services and health, as well as other health determinants like lifestyle and environment. New care models that reward health care providers based on their patient population’s health outcomes (e.g., accountable care organizations) are an interesting development. Such accountability could create a business case for health care providers to invest in certain social services or other nonclinical interventions, if doing so would be a cost-effective way to improve patients’ health.23 Over the long term, such a strategy could potentially alter the current balance between health and social services spending. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Guy made $64 million over the course of a shoddy career and was bankrupt by 2012 lol.

I'm not laughing. The Pats* are a well-run organization with an ethos based in winning... regardless of how you get there. In terms of getting wins, they do it the best. But how they get those wins is another story entirely.

8 pages about a Raiders QB?

Interesting. I was driving home from a buddies house one night. Spent 3 hours there and drank 4 12-oz beers. I was pulled over about halfway home. I was asked if I had been drinking that night and I told him the truth. He asked me to get out of the car, asked a few more questions to make sure I was mentally coherent, then gave me a roadside test. He asked me to stand in front of the car and look at the tip of the pen he was holding as he waved it back and forth in front of my face. I could only track the pen with my eyes and had to keep my head facing forward. Before the test even began I stumbled because of the drop at the shoulder of the road. Cop noticed it right away and asked me to move more towards the center of the road so it wouldn't interfere with the test. He waved his pen about 10 times across my face in slow, methodical movements. Towards the end he reassured me saying "just a couple more passes, we're almost done here" because he could see I was a bit nervous. After the test he thanked me for being honest, let me go on my way, and followed me the rest of the way home.

Give him an honest shot. If he beats out other contenders he should make the team.

Good man. Did the decent thing and didn't let it phase him one bit. I hate bullies. It's good to know he wasn't the only one sticking up for this woman either.

I became a Bills fan as I entered high school in 2003, after taking a liking to football in general in 2002. For one of my birthdays I received the NFL Films Superbowl Collection and was simply enamored watching the Bills in the 90-93 years. The nostalgia started there and morphed into my current love of the Bills, so it's hard to say when it ended.

That wouldn't be a problem for any team with DEs/OLBs that can set the edge well and play containment. Pressure up the middle with outside containment is Taylor's kryptonite. By going PA every play, it's a lot harder to get that quick release since you have to fake it to the back every snap. Even if it's only for a second, that's still significant, and just buys more time for the inside rush to develop. The only team I can even remotely see this idea working for is Dallas, since you'd need a mobile QB, an amazing offensive line, and big threats at WR, TE, and HB.