leh-nerd skin-erd

All this because you gushed over Jesus in a Bernie t-shirt, and I suggested He would go a different route? I’m pretty stunned I received any pushback at all…mostly because the subject was about Jesus, wearing a t-shirt. That’s the stuff of your Teen People or Seventeen tabloids, Kay, whimsical but unserious. I’m not against all that by the way, it’s just hard for me to relate to that particular subject and focus on it for any length of time. On commentary of my physical state, no, Kay, I would not think an apology is in order. You said what you think, you think what you said, and you meant what you mean. I cannot control what you say, I can only control how I process it. I think, but certainly don’t know, that maybe somewhere in your emotional development you received positive immediate reinforcement for the type of behavior you occasionally exhibit here. Or, maybe you believe with all your precious precociousness what you said, and bless your heart for that. Either way, I have my own issues, so yours are whatevs. I feel like I’ve extended compliments your way, and acknowledged that some of your posts provided fuel for thought. In case I kept those fat-headed thoughts in my fat head, I think you’re probably pretty intelligent, do an excellent job of outlining your thoughts, sticking to your values and I can respect all of that without agreeing with you. You also used a word the other day that I was unfamiliar with, and I like it. On your manifesto subs 2.0+, I’m sorry you feel that way. You should work through it, emotionally and intellectually, because one fat, smelly carnivore shouldn’t have you writing a thesis on how you are interacted with. It’s unhealthy. What…happened to us, Kay?

I was all for the prosecution of J6 perpetrators, however, there were more than a few stories of prosecutorial overreach. The Dems pressed the advantage they had, looking to make a statement by hunting down everyone they possibly could find. I think most reasonable Americans look at the way liberals generally approach crime (soft on perps, hard on LEOs), say the way low level offenders were tracked down and rejected the approach. Put another way, I think most people that are victims of crime would appreciate the time/effort/commitment the Biden DOJ spent on tracking down and overcharging low level offenders, but realize the hypocrisy in play. I think it mattered in November, and mattered beyond people who identify as MAGA voters. So, pardons were appropriate for some, not for more violent offenders.

Always appreciate your input, but Homey’s ignorance is as believable now as it was when he was posting as BillStime. He’s completely immersed in silliness.

Saw it a month or two back…I thought it well done, but it dragged a bit at times. I have no real idea what adolescents are facing today, but I’d think it generally goes a relatively small percentage are dealing with fringe issues, a relatively small percentage are clicking along nicely, and the majority are just trying to figure it all out as they go along. I agree with you on the 80/20 rule. I googled whatever it was that the kids scrawled on the dad’s van, but beyond that, the story was laid out pretty well.

@The Frankish Reich and the other usual suspects are saying this book will be number one with a bullet in the new Fiction category!

It always comes down to the same thing: a sensible mix of professionalism, regulation and personal accountability make sense. Like most other professions, a good/great doctor is a gift if you're lucky enough to have one. However, to pretend that the medical profession is not, on occasion, part of the problem with health care in this country is silly.

And in the process, upsetting his neighbors to the right, left, up and down in his container living suite in a large, undisclosed yet completely-walkable-everything-you-need-within-15-minutes city. I would suggest he take a deep breath, hop in the car and drive in the country for a bit. Alas, he likely sold his vehicle when he moved in. Related news--this is why Roundy-style living isn't for everyone.

Apologies for the late reply. I had a doctor's appointment today, showing up about 20 minutes before the scheduled time, respectful of the doctor's time and deftly avoiding the exorbitant fee charged by the physician for a late arrival or missed appointment. Banks would probably be thrilled with that type of return. Ironically, the doctor and his team were running quite late, so I burned through that 20 minutes, plus another 22 minutes, plus the added 15 between nurse/chart/update and arrival of said physician. The opportunity cost to me was substantial, but I'm certainly grateful that they didn't make it awkward with apologies for the time lost due to their delays. Then, off to the appointment scheduler. We had a good laugh over whether or not my follow up appointment was truly 1pm, or if 1:22pm was a better time for me to arrive. It was pretty funny, the scheduler just sort of smiled and rolled her eyes because as she said "...that's just how it goes around here." After that, I had the opportunity to visit with the billing team, inquiring as to why the charge for a prior visit was billed at 2.5x the fee previously agreed to with my health care provider, only to find that the practice had accepted payment at the previously agreed upon figure. My main concerns--was there an error in billing? A misunderstanding? A deliberate attempt to collect more than previously agreed upon? As it turned out, that's just how they do it. While I was walking out, I overheard the office manager speaking with a patient about an overdue balance, advising the patient that if a bill was not paid in full, it would be referred for follow up to a collection agency. She was pretty animated, obviously frustrated that the customer was unable or unwilling to pay. Anyway, banks. Yeah, what's with that?

I’m not certain that this thread exceeds the tedium of your posts. Sometimes, you carry the day quite effectively. My body, my diet, my right to choose. I don’t judge your hypocrisy for advocating the wholesale slaughter of plants in search of the perfect tofu chicken sammy or your flirtation and infatuation with certain climate-destructive goods and services—-oh, wait, I do. You know better, in fact, you’ll probably be telling me you know better, and you’ll offer self-congratulatory accolades that you know better, better. You’re Trumpian in that regard. It wouldn’t take much to move me towards being a vegetarian and feasting in the corpses of certain preferred organisms instead. It’s not so much the ethical part, it’s that if I spend too long contemplating how things get from there to here, I get a little woozy. Still, enjoy that which you consume. That’s what’s really cool.

I love the idea where a bank partners with a community to educate customers about the banking system, credit management, responsible borrowing and balancing a checkbook. Many do. I love the idea of reasonable fees for services, because just as in every walk of life, the relationship between cost and value matters. I draw the line at the hyper-victimization mentality where people become enraged because a fee is charged because they tried to spend money they didn’t have, and use phrases like “blood money” to address what is often an issue of personal responsibility. We live in a time where information necessary to navigate this complex relationship between available balance and desire for goods and services is at one’s fingertips. My relationship with banks, credit cards and money has taken twists and turns like many relationships do. Thankfully my role models focused on the personal responsibility aspect as opposed to the darker version you that you favor. My default would be: Allow the financial institution to asses cost/impact to their operations; Allow the financial institution to charge a reasonable fee based on said cost; Reasonable regulation balancing consumer/organizational needs makes sense; If a bank chooses to waive fees en masse, to encourage client relationships and/or loyalty, great; A $500 fee in your example seems excessive to me, but the government regulation you posted about limited the fee to $5. If a bank incurs, say $10 or $20 in cost, it makes sense to me that they should be able to recoup it.

That’s pretty nasty indeed, but I’m not reading anywhere that the change deals with payday loans, loans near military bases or Lord of the Dance tickets purchased on Ticketmaster. Bloomberg indicates the two issues that Homey was concerned about: $5 cap on overdraft fees from banks, where you spend node than you have; Firms offering digital payment service; https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/trump-signs-repeals-of-cfpb-overdraft-digital-payment-rules

Yes, I’ve bought tickets on Ticketmaster. I’m uncertain what you mean by unannounced fees. No, I’ve never taken a payday loan. (Were you a doctor for La Cosa

I don’t understand the rationale here. You have money in a checking account, let’s say $2,000. You write a series of checks, auto-withdraw a few other payments, hit the Starbucks for a few lattes and the total is $3,195. Who needs protection here, the bank or the consumer who lost track of their spending?

I really have no skin in this game, but I first heard about this when one of my Uncle’s came across the border for a private pay surgical procedure on his heart. His perspective was that due to extreme delays in treatment, he would be dead before his needs were addressed. To be fair, that was quite a few years ago and perhaps it’s gotten way better. I don’t think so, but maybe. E https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/article/i-had-started-saying-goodbye-why-some-canadians-go-abroad-for-medical-care/ According to the Canadian Medical Association, non-emergency surgeries that can be scheduled in advance, like hip, knee and cataract procedures, are being delayed, while a growing number of Canadians — now more than 6.5 million — lack access to a family doctor altogether. ‘I had to go abroad to save my life’ Celyn Harding-Jones, a Montrealer, says she was forced to look outside the country after living with a rare brain tumour for 20 years. “I had to go abroad to save my life,” she said in an email to CTVNews.ca. “I could not find one neurosurgeon in Canada who had any experience with this type of tumour or who was willing to operate.” “By the time I was 35, I had drop attacks and could barely care for my children,” she said, adding “the process to ask for provincial health boards for out of province care are not transparent, and not designed to be completed by people who are seriously sick.” https://thehealthinsider.ca/crossing-borders-for-care-the-rise-of-medical-tourism-for-canadians/#:~:text=Patients Leaving the Country&text=From 2017 to 2021%2C Canadians,jump over the previous years. Canadians seeking medical care abroad are a lot more measurable and are engaging in medical tourism in what is likely much higher numbers than reported. From 2017 to 2021, Canadians spent as much as $2.3 billion on out-of-country health care. According to reports published by the Fraser Institute, over 50,000 Canadians left the country in 2022 and that was a big jump over the previous years. The numbers continue to climb dramatically.

It's wouldn't be about you, Fergie, it's about the process mandated by the government for the benefit of the people it serves. You participate for the greater good, while maintaining the option to line your pockets at other times. The people are best served by access to all--and if a physician is going to benefit from the system, there should be a prerequisite for providing access to as many people as possible. Sheesh, I even went a bit on the liberal side suggesting the physician is not required to provide equal access to all more than 50% of the time. That allows for 50% of the week in pursuit of less financially restrictive opportunities. As for criticisms of my principles, you're the guy who wants special treatment because you were able to make a fortune off the treatment of others. The Canadian health care system as it exists is exactly what we should all hope to avoid, where patients are often forced to seek care internationally because the system simply fails to deliver consistent, quality care when needed. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's kind of odd that a doctor wouldn't know that. Do you feel this order represents an assault on democratic principles and executive overreach?

You’re just advocating for a system that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the average Joe. Don’t we have that already? If we’re looking for government intervention to fix a broken system, why not rip the bandaid off and get a system that truly benefits all. In a perfect world, the requirement is that a physician/specialty take all comers at the same fee for service. In a slightly less perfect world, there is a minimum requirement to treat avg folk say 50% of the time on a fee schedule basis. Save the boutique stuff for plastic surgery and elective surgery.

No, I don't have any complaints, just observations. You mentioned a couple posts previously about attracting the brightest and the best, that's why I wondered about a certain prerequisite of care for doctors benefiting from the system. Of course, the private pay folks may not be substantially better that those who treat all, they may just be better marketers. All things considered though, you end up with a system not at all unlike our system--it's just that the docs get to set the pricing v the market or the govt. In the end, someone is always on the wrong side of the equation.

Does the UK system require all physicians to participate in the single payer system at some level before they can freelance and set their pricing as they see fit?

That's pure foolishness--he's the last great voice of your party, and how/what he does sets the stage for the midterms and beyond. The Rs would love to see him be a disruptor as he was during the run up to the last election, would love to see infighting, chaos and drama. Likewise, the Dems likely want him to stay quiet and out of the spotlight as he has a tendency to say really stupid things and confuse Alaska with a potato. You should this one out.

It sounds to me like you're saying greed is driving all sides of this equation. Hospitals selling out. Doctors selling out. With respect to the CEO of the hospital, what type of salary are you speaking of? With respect to the top dog neurosurgeon, what type of earnings are you speaking of for him/her? As an alternative, what you you suggest as a fixed income for both?

"I don't want to talk about that..." --Fergie

That doesn't change the fact that EOs are used and supported in this fashion, and complaining because one doesn't like the agenda reveals a massive hypocrisy. You say Obama/Biden made a "blunder" with respect to their open borders EO, others see it not as a blunder, but as a deliberate, tactical assault on the sovereignty of our nation. It's not a matter of exonerating or not, it just is the way the political game is played. Using Andy's post as an example, he seemed perfectly fine with EOs when signed by those he wants to see in power, not so much now.

It’s a thread about Biden and his post-presidency activity. It’s in the thread title.

So, the Presidents you originally listed (Obama, Bush, Biden) bypassed the democratic process previously? So, it’s primarily the number and the agenda this time? I don’t disagree with you, but we deal with what’s in front of us. This is the way government works, and it seems unreasonable to complain primarily when your guy isn’t in office. That’s the standard these days, and when it’s brought up, the fallback position is “Whatboutism”. I see that as fact avoidance, because how it works in practice is pretty important when considering what things might look like in the future.

Just messing around last night after a long day. We’ll see where this goes, of course, but I’d think Trump 2 feels like he has a limited time frame to enact change, and believes there are establishment Rs in the way. On the EO front…is there a magic number you see as reasonable? Is it your belief that Obama issued 277 beyond reproach/righteous EO’s, and that Bush was hitting the sweet spot at 291? Because imo, just recapping numbers doesn’t tell a story whatsoever. In fact, how I does R outrage over Obama and/or Biden different than Democrat outrage over Trump? It seems to me you were fine with 277, but take issue with 278+ and a different agenda. To be honest, the whole process seems a gigantic clusterf+ck to me regardless of who is running the show.