Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
No bio...
User ID: 551
I'm super curious about this. I've always wondered how I'd do in one of those racing up buildings competitions. I assume pretty poorly because I haven't practiced that motion much, but still, I'm really curious just how quick I'd wind up crashing out. The heart rate part seems like no big deal, I can tolerate a lot of cardiovascular suffering in races, but the thing you're describing where your legs just kind of die seems like the real concern.
Yes, I am aware that every individual in the American medical system has the same standard line that they're actually totally fine and maybe even doing everyone a solid for working at such a charitable rate. After all, no individual (or even individual role) makes up a large amount of total expenditures, so every individual must actually be fine, good, and not extractive at all.
I'm well aware that it's not actually possible for the American medical system to become an actual market where normal market pricing applies. Liability is a great example of why, along with regulatory burden, licensing requirements, and so on. But still, it's pretty annoying to consider edge cases.
For example, Apple produces the AirpodsPro 2. These are cool and fairly common product, many people own them simply because they're good for normal earbud purposes. Apple, being full of ingenuity, now has a hearing test and hearing aid functionalities on them. Awesome! Unfortunately, those functionalities aren't available yet because implementing that software update transforms them into a medical device that requires FDA approval. So, we have people that own an object that could test their hearing and implement hearing improvements for them. It's all ready to go! But the FDA says you may not use that functionality until they say you can.
I don't know just how many things there are like that, but it's a great example of how ponderous and captured this whole apparatus is.
Honestly, all I want is the same level of care and availability that I can get from a veterinarian, plus the ability to pay for market-rate insurance to cover against genuine catastrophe. I know this isn't what most people want, but it really is all I want out of the system. I have just about arrived at the point where I think people in aggregate would be better off if there was almost no medical regulation and the government paid for nothing other than a few emergency services.
My dog has seizures. When we discovered this, we were able to get her into a vet and get blood work done and meds prescribed at reasonable prices. Now she doesn't have seizures. Nothing about this was massively complicated, no MRIs were done, no insurance was involved, we just put her on barbiturates and now she doesn't have seizures. The number of human medical problems that seem to have roughly comparable complexity and that run about bajillion dollar in bills instead of being handled quickly and easily is mindblowing.
I agree with that in principle, but there's a risk of missing the big picture when crafting too technical of a response.
I think it's even worse than this. Setting aside violence and just focusing on anger, it is absolutely amazing to me that people think a technical response is actually a strong rebuttal. People are mad precisely because the whole thing is utterly byzantine, impossible for someone with a double-digit IQ to understand, and they're aware that the guys at the top of making tens of millions of dollars on products that confuse and frustrate their customers.
I'm sure many people would still be frustrated if they couldn't afford medical care, but I think they'd be less frustrated if there was just a big fat sticker on the medical care, an accurate price that the patient just couldn't afford. Instead, you have patients that were under the impression that they'd done the right thing, gotten insured, and would be taken care of when they needed care. When they are surprised by a denial, they are understandable frustrated. No one told them this would happen! Yeah, sure someone has to determine what qualifies and what doesn't, it's all very complicated, there are tons of experts and if you don't like the experts, you can get a lawyer to talk to their lawyers, and maybe you'll even still be alive when it's eventually resolved.
That's what people are reacting against - that some rich fuck gets to make tens of millions of dollars on a product that they feel deceived by and he feels completely invulnerable because he's got an army of experts and lawyers, and you don't have shit. Then, when someone expresses this, some blogboi shows up to explain that actually you're too stupid to understand why the experts and lawyers are correct and the rich fuck should be completely invulnerable.
No, I don't think that's likely to assuage people's anger. I'll note that I'm only partially sympathetic to the anger - I actually have just about as much ire for the patients in a lot of examples as the system. Nonetheless, I can barely imagine an approach less productive than lecturing people about how it's all actually very complicated and they don't really understand.
High heart rates being 150s/160s?
This depends what your max heart rate is. Max heart rate is mostly set by genetics and age, it doesn't change much over any short period of time. If your max HR is 180, then 160s is high. If your max HR is 200, 160s is not that high - I'll spend a half marathon above that the entire time.
Cardiovascular fitness is certainly the simplest way. Having a powerful heart results in fewer strokes to move the same amount of blood volume. On days that I don't have any alcohol my heart rate drops into the low-40s while sleeping or while being mindfully restful. There is no shortcut here, but it's also not all that difficult - any decent amount of running, biking, or swimming will yield that result within a year or so.
Dude nobody gives a shit about how early or late it gets light. It's not a big deal. Changing clocks, on the other hand, is an inconvenience for everyone and it messes with time calculation as the Count rightly pointed out.
I have no idea how to bridge the fact that this is the exact opposite of my intuition and experience. I couldn't possibly give a shit less about the clock changing. I travel pretty often and my clocks change by more than an hour without it being a big deal. Working hours starting while it's still dark out, on the other hand, actually sucks and this seems completely obvious to me. I'm baffled by people that feel differently. Getting up when it's dark sucks.
I am well aware of this and it's one of the few things that can still trigger my old argumentative atheism. I know the arguments and counterarguments and still just can't shake the gut feeling that it's impossibly stupid to believe there's an all-powerful cosmic being that's affronted by "God" but not "G-d" when typed into Twitter.
Another corollary to this is looking at PISA scores by race. I frequently see people on both the left and the right complain that the results of the American education system aren't very good, when the reality is that Asian and white Americans are doing great relative to comparable nations while black Americans are "only" doing about as well as Greeks and Chileans. Perhaps we do spend too much on education, but we actually do have an education system that produces what I would consider to be pretty good results.
I suppose I don't know what to do with that as a conclusion that will be compelling to anyone. It's not like the large, underperforming demographics that weigh down life expectancy and educational results aren't real or don't deserve the best education and medicine that can reasonably be provisioned by a society. It's just that I think they're pretty much already getting those and the results are what they are. For people on the left side of things, they're not going to find it even slightly compelling to reply, "hey, our systems aren't so bad, we just have a large underclass that doesn't really get educated and dies from violence, drugs, and obesity". I guess all I really want out of pointing it out is making sure we're actually having the conversation from the same starting point. If someone think it's bad, actually, that Americans die young, we can talk about that. But if they think the medical system just doesn't work, they're wrong.
I lack the infamy, but I have read a lot on nutrition, have strong cardiovascular fitness, and sometimes go to McD's. Some nuggies aren't going to ruin speed days at the track.
I think my odds of being able to go to the farmer's market and buy beef with American dollars for the remainder of my life are quite high. Maybe I'll be wrong, but my general monetary plan isn't based on not desiring the ability to freely transact, but based on my evaluation that I can pretty much do so in the United States and I don't expect that to change any time soon. I'll be absolutely shocked if it turns out that in 2034 I can purchase brats with Bitcoin, but not US dollars.
I prefer digital good boy points because my decades-long experience is that I can reliably exchange them for goods and services that I desire. I grant that there is some systemic risk incurred by relying on said good boy points instead of the new and very reliable shitcoins, but I find that level of risk over the course of my lifetime to be acceptable, particularly when compared to the likelihood that I'll ever be in a situation where Delta or my local steakhouse are accepting Doge.
Now that crypto seems to be firmly on one side of the Culture War, in that Trump and co. are actively promoting it, what do we see as the future of crypto under a Trump presidency?
I am admittedly not highly knowledgeable in the area, but the extent of this mostly just reinforces to me that the whole thing is pretty much just a pump-and-dump scam where grifters can make big money. The enthusiasm of the Trumpsphere for crypto strikes me as a feedback loop between grifters and idiots diving in and seeing line-go-up as a get-rich-quick scheme with no plausible reason that this is actually an investment.
if only the CEO was less evil everything would work out
The investigation revealed that in 2019, UHC's prior authorization denial rate was 8.7%. Thompson became CEO in 2021, and by 2022 the rate of denial had increased to 22.7%. For both Medicare and non-Medicare claims, UHC declines at a rate double the industry average.[11]
I don't think everything would work out for everyone if the CEO was less evil, but I think a strategy of vigorously denying claims at an exceptional rate is actually pretty evil and destroys a lot of lives in service of increasing margins. That the CEO being less evil wouldn't solve literally everything in healthcare access and funding isn't exactly a defense of the CEO being evil.
Health insurance companies have a terrible reputation.
If I'm in a car accident, my auto insurance company pretty much just pays for my accident (or at least that was my limited experience and the experience of others I know). There are occasional disputes about the amounts and autobody companies do have to deal with those disputes, but I am not aware of any auto insurance companies that attempt to just delay approval of repairs until their customers give up or die. In principle, it seems like they could do that - the insured party may decide they can't afford to wait and argue, they just need their car fixed, and then the insurance company can refuse to pay. I'm sure that does happen from time-to-time, but it doesn't really seem like a going concern.
My infinitely naïve solution is to just offer insurance products that you intend to actually make good on rather than deceiving people into believing they're covered in order to create additional profit margins. I'm sure many people would still be bitter about actual facts, but it seems clear that health insurance companies aren't simply dealing with cold actuarial facts and communicating costs clearly, they're lying to people, they're fighting legitimate medical care, and they profit from figuring out ways to legally avoid paying for treatment.
I really doubt that this is specific movement is terribly relevant, but I'm willing to buy that there's some small-scale vibe related to it. One thing that's interesting to me about it is that it is the interplay with marriage dynamics - the electoral marriage gap is also quite wide, and married men and women are both more likely to vote Republican. So, who would be conducting an American 4B and whom would be getting punished by it? It doesn't seem like there will be a great deal of success in punishing right-wing men, who tend to already be married to right-wing women. You can see some of that in the dynamic here:
Still, at least for now, the movement appears on the upswing in both countries as women say that the model of life they’d expected — dating, marriage, house, kids — looks, increasingly, like a trap set by men who don’t see them as equals. And women like my cousin want alternatives.
“To live with friends that are close to me, to have the ability to live on my own — living like that is my dream,” she says.
As a now-aging, happily married, somewhat right-wing man, this all sounds absolutely insane to me. The dream is having a cozy home with your partner. This isn't a trap, it really is just the best, easiest, happiest way to live life. To the extent that single women are vulnerable, it's not because of right-wing men, but because of their own failure to arrange their life in a coherent, ordered fashion. In rebelling and insisting on remaining alone, they continue to push further into insecurity and loneliness.
Mask mandates remained in place. Mask mandates are hysteria.
I don't believe so, no. I'm just riffing off of the claim from Sotomayor and the dissent in Grants Pass or the even more bewildering claims in Powell that claim that many behaviors are actually just statuses and can't be criminalized. I have trouble treating these as serious claims that are intended to work consistently.
Terry Nichols could meet Jones’ penalty at only $7.70 an hour.
I don't know if this is a fun fact or unfun fact, but it is amazing either way and I say thank you for it.
Apparently, Jones should have just claimed that being a kooky conspiracy theorist is a status.
I find that I agree with you across the board, but one footnote on my annoyance with the current state of affairs:
I argue we can reasonably say you're being extremely negligent (and therefore at least partially responsible) if you didn't provide people with adequate warnings, safety equipment, and AT LEAST a guardrail around the edge to keep people from sliding in.
I feel like these online services already do this. They advertise, but they close with a line about gambling addiction. Everyone is simultaneously bombarded with advertisements for gambling and admonishments about how you need to be really careful. To me, this feels like the worst of both worlds, where we legalized something that's apparently quite destructive for quite a few people, but with the caveat that everyone has to be antagonized about how dangerous it is. I bet $2 on Josh Allen to score a rushing touchdown because I think it's fun. Leave me alone. Stop telling me over and over and over that I'd better watch out about how addictive it is. Either let people ruin their lives or don't, but don't do this stupid in between thing where we all acknowledge that it's ruining lives and therefore everyone needs to hear about that.
Overall, I guess I just increasingly believe that the typical person should pretty much not be extended credit on much of anything. They just don't seem to be able to conceptualize how credit lines work, what interest is, and so on.
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I have previously argued at some length in favor of abolishing absentee balloting outside of military service.
My claim isn't that 2020 was good, but that it just turns out that the simple model of 2020 has plenty of explanatory power.
I consider this pretty strong evidence that the sloppiness of just spamming mail-in ballots to just about everyone successfully increased turnout in 2020. Whether you consider that rigging, illegal, totally fair, a desirable state of affairs that should be permanently implemented... whatever, it just seems like that's actually the explanation. If that's not it, we need to explain the big fluctuations in the Trump vote as well.
- Prev
- Next
My position is not quite that, but not too far from it. If we take the story that this is about his anti-Islam grievances at face value, it seems to me that it's an example of how importing people from places that have ethnic and religious conflicts that Westerners don't even understand results in importing their conflicts along with them. See also, the disputes with Sikh violence that have stirred up India-Canada tensions. I don't want Muslim immigrants from Saudi Arabia and I don't want anti-Muslim immigrants from Saudi Arabia in my country. I don't want to think about Saudi Islam anymore than strictly necessary for international relations. There are enough domestic tensions without needing to add Saudi conflicts to Germany.
More options
Context Copy link