• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      We’re still doing this?  Absolutely!  Despite all the compelling reasons to just let everyone go home and enjoy and extended offseason, this is not an option.  The games must be played, and therefore we the long-suffering fans will feel compelled to watch.  Even games no reasonable football fan would choose to watch like, for example, today’s Redskins Jets game.   

      Today’s convergence of sadness features the 30th ranked scoring offense (Jets 14.4 ppg) versus the 32nd (Redskins 12.0 ppg).  The first team to 15 wins!  With no playoff aspirations the compelling story lines for this game are largely limited to watching young players (hopefully) develop.  Dwayne Haskins gets his first home start and Derrius Guice is back from injury.   
       
      My, reasonable, goals for today’s game:  
      1- Score a touchdown 
      2- Score more than 17 points.   
      3- Haskins throws for 200 yards or more with no interceptions  
      4- Guice runs the ball at least 10 times and finishes at 3.5 yards per carry and healthy.  
       
      Hoping for a win at this point feels like setting myself up for disappointment, so I’m happy to settle for an entertaining loss.  
       
      Special thanks to @pez for some excellent Guinness beef stew.  If you absolutely have to stand in a frozen parking lot at 9am, the best place to do it is at the Extremeskins Tailgate with Pez and @Huly.  Great fans, great people. 
       
      The Redskins have declared for the following players as inactive: 
      Paul Richardson  
      Colt McCoy 
      Deshazor Everett 
      Chris Thompson  
      Ross Pierschbacher 
      Vernon Davis  
      Tim Settle  
       
      The Jets declared the following players as inactive  
      Nate Hairston  
      Darryl Roberts  
      Paul Worrilow 
      Matthias Farley  
      CJ Mosley  
      Jordan Willis  
      Leo Koloamatangi 
       
      1st Quarter - Redskins 0 - 6 Jets
      If you wanted to sit in the cold and watch a football game with some Jets fans at FedEx, but were worried that there were not enough seats available, I have good news.  There’s plenty of space available, so come on down and prove you’re a real fan by sitting though this in person.
       
      Jets dominated the 1st quarter even though they only scored 6 points.  The reason being that Washington managed only 13 yards of offense and a single first down.  
       
      Question: Is it still a check down pass if the QB never looks at anyone else?
       
      2nd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      The Jets have achieved an insurmountable 13 point lead early in the 2nd quarter.  All hope is lost.

      Is there a more perfect example of the Redskins offense than their first scoring drive in the 2nd quarter?  Interception gives the Redskins the ball on the Jets 16 yard line.  They proceed to march 10 yards backwards before kicking a field goal from the Jets 26.  It's perfect.  Two or three more field goals we can call it a day. 

      The Jets score again and if feels like they are are just piling on at this point.  Three touchdowns in the first half for them, just three points for the redskins.  Our streak of no touchdowns has now extended to 15 quarters. 
       
      3rd Quarter - Redskins 3 - 20 Jets
      There is a spider slowly descending from the ceiling in the press box and it's the most interesting thing that's happened during the third quarter of this game. 
       
      I have decided to allow the spider to live, provided it does not touch me.  I'm off to get some more caffeine. 

      4th Quarter - Redskins 17 - 34 Jets
      The first wave of Redskins fans, the few that are here, started streaming towards the exits after that 4th Jets touchdown.  As if the Jets didn't have this game wrapped up in the 2nd quarter. 
       
      Jet have now more than doubled their average points per game and have matched their season high of 34 points (and they missed two field goals in this game). 
       
      TOUCHDOWN REDSKINS!  THE DROUGHT IT OVER!  Guice took a short pass from Haskins  all the way to the house.  2 point conversion is successful on a pass from Haskins to Quinn. 
       
      The Redskins score another touchdown!  This feels like an embarrassment of riches, even if we are still certain to lose this game. 
       
      End of Game.
       
      Let's review those reasonable goals I mentioned earlier:
       
      1- Success.
      2- Close enough, I'm counting it
      3- Haskins did throw for over 200, but unfortunately did have an interception. 
      4- Guice was not given the opportunity to run the ball ten times today.  He did however score on a 45 yard TD pass and finish the game healthy.  I'll take it.
       
      Even though the Redskins lost, it was good to see the offense show some faint signs of life and end the streak of games without a TD.  The team looked competitive for much of the second half, and perhaps they could have made this a fun game if they carried that same energy throughout.  It was good to see Guice and Mclaurin show out today.  I think both of them have a future with this team that I look forward to seeing. 

       
       

       
       
       
       
       
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie, Shake Your Booty Pete & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

I mean why does the government support research endeavors in any nascent technology that seems promising or could deliver entirely new tech capabilities? I don't really get what you are arguing here. A government can be data driven and also forward thinking and bold in terms of supporting early research and growth of entirely new forms of technological capabilities. This is already the case with DARPA and ARPA-E.

 

There's a difference between the government funding research, and the government pushing an idea. The government has funded research for decades now, but I generally don't think people would say the government has pushed the ideas that it is funded (pushing an idea to me is Kennedy and the moon, Reagan and SDI, etc).

 

Currently, the government funds research related to geoengineering.  Obviously, Yang isn't talking about the government continuing to do what it is doing.

 

Most new/big ideas are wrong.  Becoming married to an idea (pushing an idea) without supported data is likely to have negative costs and consequences.

 

Funding geoengineering research probably makes sense.  Pushing it as some long term solution without significant negative consequence probably doesn't.

 

And isn't supported by data.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

2. Start negotiating medical prices down to levels between Canada and UK

 

Fundamental to the Canadian (and I believe UK) system are essentially government funded healthcare facilities (e.g. hospitals).

 

The government block grants funding to hospitals (without worrying about what the money is being spent on).

 

Which reduces over head (and likely increases fraud).  I'm doubtful that you can do A (lower medical prices) without B (funding health care facilities in way that is independent of the procedure they perform).

 

I don't think medicare for all gets you to Canadian or UK healthcare costs.

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m on private insurance and it sucks a giant bag of dicks.  I’m all for making tshile give up his great private insurance so we can all have nice public insurance.

 

That said, ACA market plans sucked worse than my employer based insurance.  So to me, I think it’s all or nothing.  Everyone goes public or it won’t work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear people wanting government run healthcare (with or without a private option) and I just think about two current versions of it in the military and VA.  Makes me hesitant to let them go ahead and provide for everyone.  I could possibly see a government version if people can buy better, private service when they get tired of the federal system.  But that makes Warren even scarier.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

MFA would have to be phased in, a siesmic shift like that cannot be taken lightly.  

 

Could be something like:

 

 

3. Make it illegal to deny Medicare or Medicaid

 

 

This is the part that terrifies me as a provider of mental health services.  I currently accept Medicaid and Medicare in my practice.  I live in South Dakota, and I feel that the reimbursement from these programs is low, but not so low that I can't afford to include some patients with these forms of insurance. However, there is no way I could get by with only seeing patients with such low reimbursement.  Also, I have worked in Illinois in the past, and it would have been impossible to see medicade patients and continue to make a living.  When I was there, reimbursement from Medicaid was around $7.50 for a 50 minute treatment session.  You would not get that $7.50 for almost two years, and you would often have to resubmit the claim multiple times in the two years you were waiting to get paid.

 

So, I was willing to treat some people for free rather than wasting time on trying to get reimbursed for the treatment provided.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Fundamental to the Canadian (and I believe UK system) are essentially government funded healthcare facilities (e.g. hospitals).

 

The government block grants funding to hospitals (without worrying about what the money is being spent on).

 

Which reduces over head (and likely increases fraud).  I'm doubtful that you can do A (lower medical prices) without B (funding health care facilities in way that is independent of the procedure they perform).

There's gotta be a way to get these prices down, we are getting price gauged in this country because pharma is being allowed to do it. I'm fine with using block grants to cover the missing money to hospitals, but we'd need to bring that $150 billion number down, it should come down gradually, not jolted.

Quote

The nation's hospitals would lose somewhere on the order of $150 billion a year, according to anarticle in The Journal of the American Medical Association. Which would mean that someone would have to be paid less, and it wouldn't just be insurance companies: It would be nurses and doctors, therapists and billing specialists, the entire universe of middle-class jobs that America's health care industry supports. Even some physicians who support single-payer have suggested they are worried about the possibility that hospitals would lose money. "The line here can't be and shouldn't be soak the hospitals," the president of Physicians for a National Health Program recently told The New York Times

 

Cuts to hospital payments, meanwhile, would be hardest to bear for rural hospitals that serve poorer populations. Many of these hospitals are, for obvious reasons, already struggling financially, and under a system of all Medicare rates, they would likely be first to close, leaving local residents with fewer health care options. Warren styles herself a populist champion of the working class, but it is not much of a stretch to say she supports a plan that would make health care worse and less accessible for the nation's rural poor

 

That last part felt completely unnecessary.  Warren said she supported Bernie's plan for MFA, here's how he said he planned to pay for it

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/options-to-finance-medicare-for-all%3Finline%3Dfile&ved=2ahUKEwjckrbn34rjAhVvmeAKHTwHB1sQFjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2tqCxQugfNOPAoT_zhxHsW

 

I don't think they are ignoring the costs of this at all, they really do believe there's so much money at the top in this country that by taxing them we can afford it without wrecking the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I hear people wanting government run healthcare (with or without a private option) and I just think about two current versions of it in the military and VA.  Makes me hesitant to let them go ahead and provide for everyone.  I could possibly see a government version if people can buy better, private service when they get tired of the federal system.  But that makes Warren even scarier.  

 

Was reading an article today about a VA hospital giving fake appointments to make it seem like they were keeping up with them.  That tells me that a government run hospital system like what the UK does wouldn't work here, based on the track record. 

 

It may be inevitable if we did this for certain hospitals to stay a lot, like rural ones.  But then they say people like nurses should be paid more, wonder what that means...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

 

I'm military.  Not a system you want to copy.

That’s why I asked. You should opt for a private insurance with your wife, but I’m not sure if you have or haven’t.

 

Also, I’m sure those people without insurance would love to opt into the system you deride. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Springfield said:

I’m on private insurance and it sucks a giant bag of dicks.  I’m all for making tshile give up his great private insurance so we can all have nice public insurance.

 

exactly. 

 

Remember that next time you’re inclined to start whining about how some group of people doesn’t care about you. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:

😂

 

thats a good one

Is it employer based?  It would be political suicide to not make sure Medicare could match what's available via employer, let alone open market

Edited by Renegade7
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nerm said:

So, I was willing to treat some people for free rather than wasting time on trying to get reimbursed for the treatment provided.

 

 

Is there any math on the number of people that would start getting treatment with this plan to help try and offset the attempts to bring down prices?  

 

Maryland from my understand in one of the links takes medicare prices and middle point to market price for medicare pricing.  It doesn't have as much of the cost savings, but it brings it more to a different equilibrium.  Wouldn't if the government was trying to cover the loses more from this, we could grow the number of practices to keep up with it?

 

It's costing us a lot not making sure people can afford to get mental health treatment in this country, a lot.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As to the VA, I have to admit to being conflicted.  

 

If you want to get told how the VA is a Chamber of Horrors, you can at least find anecdotal evidence of that. 

 

But then, I also read articles in which the VA is rated better for patient satisfaction than private medical care.   (I'm even going to ignore the articles I find published by the VA.)  

 

Just looking, here's an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper on the subject.  

 

Quote

Sixty-nine articles were identified (including 31 articles from the prior systematic review and 38 new articles) that address one or more Institute of Medicine quality dimensions: safety (34 articles), effectiveness (24 articles), efficiency (9 articles), patient-centeredness (5 articles), equity (4 articles), and timeliness (1 article). Studies of safety and effectiveness indicated generally better or equal performance, with some exceptions. Too few articles related to timeliness, equity, efficiency, and patient-centeredness were found from which to reliably draw conclusions about VA care related to these dimensions.

 

Another peer reviewed study.  (Although I note:  This appears to be a scientific analysis of how different hospitals are ranked on Yelp.)  

 

Quote

Results: The mean patient rating for VA hospitals (± standard deviation) was higher (3.64 ± 1.0) than the rating for affiliated hospitals (3.09 ± 0.8; P = .0036). There was no significant correlation in rating between a VA hospital and its affiliate (r = 0.07; P = .59). After adjustment for hospital characteristics, the adjusted rating difference (VA-affiliate hospitals) was 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.12). 

 

If you want media reports, things seem more mixed.  

 

Reuters: VA may top other hospitals in quality but not patient satisfaction

 

Quote

 

Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals in the U.S. may deliver higher quality care than other medical centers but still get lower marks on patient satisfaction, a new study suggests.

 

Researchers examined data for 129 VA and 4,010 non-VA hospitals nationwide and found the VA had lower rates of six complications tied to quality: pressure ulcers, deaths of surgical patients with serious treatable conditions, care-related lung injuries, clots in the vein in surgical patients, catheter-related bloodstream infections, post-operative bloodstream infections and post-operative surgical wound ruptures. Rates of other complications tied to quality were similar at VA and non-VA hospitals.

 

For some common medical problems, the VA also had lower mortality rates and lower rates of repeat hospitalizations than other hospitals, the study found.

 

But when it came to several measures of patient satisfaction like doctors’ and nurses’ communication skills and pain management, the VA lagged behind.

 

 

So I'm not really sure who to believe.  

 

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Also, I’m sure those people without insurance would love to opt into the system you deride. 

Might make them feel good that they can say they have coverage.  But what exactly would they be getting?  I once had what turned out to be a kidney stone and for about 4 days they told me I had ALS.  

 

Edit:  @Larry this is anecdotal but my sister is a case manager for the VA and listening to some of her stories, I'm glad I have military medicine.  And that's sad.  In the cases where VA looks good compared to other systems,  it just tells me how bad those other systems are.

Edited by TheGreatBuzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, twa said:

Warren reminds me of Carter in some ways, and not good ones .

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Dukakis and Kerry. 

 

The country seems to be allergic to Democrats from the Northeast.  I guess its OK from the South or Midwest though.  That would be my main concern with Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DCSaints_fan said:

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Dukakis and Kerry. 

 

The country seems to be allergic to Democrats from the Northeast.  I guess its OK from the South or Midwest though.  That would be my main concern with Warren.

 

Carter was big on plans and the belief govt could make things better, intelligence does not equal leadership or even the right path.

 

He had good intentions though. :pint:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

That’s why I asked. You should opt for a private insurance with your wife, but I’m not sure if you have or haven’t.

 

Also, I’m sure those people without insurance would love to opt into the system you deride. 

We have plain ol' free tricare. I'm heathy *pew pew*, and thanks to abolishing "preexisting conditions", I am confident I could receive sufficient care until employer open enrollment came around. 

 

I also consistently see/hear multiple military families on food stamps, WIC, etc who CHOOSE to switch to the tricare co-pay/coinsurance version in lieu of free version due to lack of satisfactory care.

 

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

exactly. 

 

Remember that next time you’re inclined to start whining about how some group of people doesn’t care about you. 

But why aren't you both just purchasing a better insurance? Even if not via employer, I 100% guarantee you the additional premium cost is a hell of a lot cheaper than what your taxes would turn into with a good government "for all" plan. #facts

 

 

53 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Is it employer based?  It would be political suicide to not make sure Medicare could match what's available via employer, let alone open market

I don't follow

....employer plans and open market plans....and obamacare plans have no distinction except for who pays the premium/determination of premium.

Health plans are health plans are health plans.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Plan F to supplement Medicare and basically it covers anything that Medicare doesn't. I currently pay $185/month and that will go up. I also pay the $135  from my Social Security account and that will go up too.  I see my doctor quarterly with blood tests too and I don't pay anything. I found a Part D prescription drug plan that costs $10.40/month and I don't pay for my prescriptions through the plan's arrangement with CVS. 

 

I am trying to live on my SS check and didn't want gigantic health bills that I couldn't pay. Plus with my plans I can choose my doctors etc. because moving to another state this was important.

 

We need to stop rejections and the continual submission of claims. The paperwork is a killer and a total game for private insurance companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

I don't follow

....employer plans and open market plans....and obamacare plans have no distinction except for who pays the premium/determination of premium.

Health plans are health plans are health plans.

1

 

There's a max package you can get from your employer based insurance, at least my experience.  

 

That's different if I go even outside the ACA exchanges and see what's the best available in terms of coverage regardless of cost.  That was brought up earlier about people that maybe we're self-employeed and just gave themselves and their families they best they could find because they could afford it.  

 

All three of those are different in terms of what to expect from any place to get insurance from.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect this debate #2 to be Biden vs Sanders.

 

Will someone get noticed like Castro and to a lesser extent Booker did last night?   Seems like Harris and Mayor Pete seem like the best candidates for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

There's a max package you can get from your employer based insurance, at least my experience.  

 

That's different if I go even outside the ACA exchanges and see what's the best available in terms of coverage regardless of cost.  That was brought up earlier about people that maybe we're self-employeed and just gave themselves and their families they best they could find because they could afford it.  

 

All three of those are different in terms of what to expect from any place to get insurance from.

Yes employers get to pick what plans if any they offer. Some offer phenomenal plans and pay 100% premiums. Others offer the crappiest plans allowable by ACA (often labeled catastrophic plans) which actually end up requiring low wage earners to pay more out of pocket then if they had no insurance at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Yang has a chance to show he really is from the future.

latest?cb=20180529210835

 

Think the Yang is more like Kang??

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Is there any math on the number of people that would start getting treatment with this plan to help try and offset the attempts to bring down prices?  

 

Maryland from my understand in one of the links takes medicare prices and middle point to market price for medicare pricing.  It doesn't have as much of the cost savings, but it brings it more to a different equilibrium.  Wouldn't if the government was trying to cover the loses more from this, we could grow the number of practices to keep up with it?

 

It's costing us a lot not making sure people can afford to get mental health treatment in this country, a lot.  

 

I don't follow much of news about these issues as a public policy debate.  So, I am not sure what solutions are being proposed.  As a practical matter, however, paying providers less for the time they spend treating mental health issues will reduce the number of people willing to spend time providing treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.