Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

No. I had no idea.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Well good. Now that you know, you can provide some evidence for the assertion that is actually in question.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

You idiot. Seriously?

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

You ignore the papers focus on the total lack of rational relationship between the price charged by the provider and a true value of the service provided. This is not a situation where a provider is merely trying to get the best price for its services. This is a situation in which a third-party payer has created a scenario in which the provider is charging outrageous and unsupportable amount to offset bulk discounts.

The argument you are making is intentionally obtuse. That's not an allegation, but a logical conclusion, as there is no other reason for you to ignore the lack of rational relationship between the value and the price charged except in order to avoid recognizing the inflating effect of the TPA.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

What if you dislike a male politician because he is too schoolmarmy?

I think most people dislike the schoolmarmy of both sexes, reflexively. Ever heard anyone use the adjective in a positive sense?

It's one of those words like fastidious, or officious, which aren't technically insulting, but describe personality traits to which most people aren't drawn. "He's a hall monitor," "...typical rule custodian," etc.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

What is I dislike you because you are a shrill hysterical shrew-bitch? Hypothetical question. I don't think you are a shrew-bitch.

Clyde Stubblefield, storied funk drummer, died yesterday. His drum lick to James Brown's funky drummer was sampled so much in hip hop (and elsewhere) that there was actually a backlash against sampling it. One of my favorite James Brown moments is when, almost five minutes into the extended funk workout "Give It Up or Turn It Loose," there is a bongo break and then James Brown begins calling the band back in. Starting with Clyde (and then Bootsy). And he builds the funk back up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEVnFGnjnGU

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Ahhhhh, now I hope YOU'RE joking.

But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Dude, you do know that a "schoolmarm" is a female, right? And even though we may use it to refer to a man, like "bitch" it is an insult dependent on gender?

Your other examples are not the same. And I get what Adder was saying - my friend Wanda (of "Help Me, Wanda Beauty Shoppe") likes to remind me that my antipathy towards Hillary in 2008 was expressed using terms like "scold" and "nag."

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

he didn't say school marm, ncs did. he said "there's something affected-third-grade-teacher about her persona that I've always found off-putting.

That's probably grounded in mysogny."

I took it to be he feels she speaks down to him. I dislike plenty of politicians for that, mostly male. I voted for Hillary, even though it made me sic that I did. And if she had won I would have been happy about 2 things 1 a woman was president, and 2 Trump was not. But the fact that I found her a horrible choice does not make me sexist. I've barely heard Warren speak, but Adder can dislike her and not be sexist.

Plus, Adder's history makes it clear he is uncomfortable with many of his feelings and willing to listen to others tell him why/how he actually feels. I won't get into this here.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I was actually responding to Sebby, who said (in response to ncs) that "schoolmarm" was not a gendered insult. I don't care how Adder feels (no offense, Adder).

Carry on.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Among other things, I don't understand how "removing the TPA system for preventative care" would prevent providers from quoting higher prices and later accepting smaller payments.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

You with your gendered talk... A right bunch of sexists and bigots, the lot of you.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

It would compel providers of preventative care to compete, and provide competitive preventative care pre-insurance-discount unit prices. The massive spread between providers' pre/non-insurance price (or negotiating position) would tighten, in the direction of the insurers' discounted payment. This would decrease or at least freeze prices in preventative care. Because prices impact one another, this decreasing/freezing effect would bleed over to catastrophic/chronic care, which would bleed over to premiums.

It's like reverse cancer -- a drop in one area of costs, and the savings it creates, would create a drop in (or at a minimum freeze) all others.

I fully appreciate there are a number of benign and sinister elements of our system which would preclude such a fix. But it's worth allowing this idea to gestate as a concept while the GOP is thinking of so many potentially worse ways to address health care.

I personally think the fix is either a "true" insurance system along the lines of what I've described above, or single payer. What we've had to date is just too much of a drag on the rest of the economy without a significant enough positive offsetting economic effect.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Silliness. The schoolmarm is an asexual thing. Its Velma from Scooby Doo, with a brutal case of OCD. It's Felix Unger on the tail end of a cheap, heavily meth-cut 8 ball. It's Dana Carvey doing the Church Lady... and everyone else who's told you to "eat your peas."

Penis, vagina, both, neither, other... It's the No Fun Club.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

You didn't answer my question. Right now, providers compete with each other for the business of insurers. You think that their ability to "anchor" with higher prices than they ultimately accept from the insurers is distorting competition and leading to higher prices. If you prevent consumers from relying on insurers, and force them to deal directly with providers, how does that solve the putative problem of anchoring?

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Do not insult Velma.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

In a few ways:

1. No direct paying consumer would be able to pay anything near the enormous "anchor" prices providers throw at insurers. Preventative/elective care providers would no doubt attempt to gouge as much as they could at first, but they'd find huge holes in the daily schedules pretty quickly. Prices will be forced downward, to more realistic true market values (cost of service + reasonable profit) of the service provided.

2. In a direct consumption scenario, providers would have to publish prices. Competitors would then undercut each other, which would create downward pressure on pricing.

3. Removal of the insurer removes need for anchor prices. As those false prices vanish from the marketplace, their inflating impact on the price of services generally vanishes.

ETA: #2 and #3 also impact the cost of chronic care paid by insurers. If you have preventative care billed at X which is similar to chronic care billed at XXX, even an insurer demanding a stiff discount would make the case to the provider, "You can't charge me XXX for care quite similar something you charge X for in the preventative marketplace." That creates downward pressure on prices in the chronic market.

To the extent any catastrophic care was similar to preventative care (cost of supplies, etc.), #2 and #3 also would exert some downward pressure on prices there. But I don't think it'd be as great an impact as we'd see in re: chronic care, for obvious reasons.

ETA2: Every dollar saved by creating downward pressure in pricing for all types of care would impact premium costs. Insurers would of course try to nevertheless keep the savings for themselves, but they'd have a hard time countering this argument: "If preventative care is on my dime now, premiums should be lower, or at least not going up anymore."

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I didn't say I was sexist. I said my dislike of her persona was grounded in mysogny, because it's a reaction to a specifically feminine stereotype.

Which means I should try to get over that reaction and focus on what she's saying and not the presentation with which she says it.

Dude, I'm from Minnesota.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Like Ty, I spend a fair bit of time on microeconomics and this is really gibberish.

Providers compete now for contracts with bulk purchasers. Nearly all of their "sales" happen at those negotiated prices. If you took those negotiations away, the most likely results are (1) prices would fall for the small fraction of services that actually happen at the list price, and (2) prices would rise for the vast bulk of transactions that used to be at the negotiated price.

There may be good reasons why that's a desirable result, but it's not a story that leads to lower prices overall, unless you think that the third party payers are completely incompetent.

It's single payer. The only way your proposal saves any money is by leaving many people without care.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Yes, but it's not an ungendered thing.

How did I miss this?
 

Perfect: http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...7/xxxxxxx.html

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I was watching OJ Made in America over the weekend. Great documentary. And what struck me most (aside from OJ's desire to transcend race--at least when it came to his interactions with white people) was the portion of the documentary dealing with the reactions to the verdict.

It never ceases to amaze me how white people (generally, of course) have this amazing ability to zero in on the absolute most narrow sliver of an issue to protect themselves from dealing with their own racism. The documentary did a beautiful job of providing context to what it was like in LA leading up to the trial, providing the many examples of police just destroying black people's lives with impunity with the clear support of police brass at the highest levels and the justice system. Again and again and again.

But every single white person whose reaction to the verdict is captured in the documentary (and almost every single white person I've ever discussed the trial with) refuses to look at that verdict in that context. Analysis begins and ends with the DNA evidence and how unlikely it is that so many cops could have manufactured or manipulated so much evidence. And then it's: "OJ got off because he was rich and black and the jury was black." Nothing else is relevant. All other instances of complete and total injustice traveling in the opposite direction might as well not even exist.

This is the same shit. (And I'm using your post as a jumping off point.) People hate Elizabeth Warren because she talks down to them. She absolutely explains (often) complicated issues in a way that can be easily digested by many people. She explains the policy she is fighting before providing her opinions. Smart people who don't need to sit through those mini lessons chafe. Stupid people (i.e., 90% of the population) who are completely uninformed, think she's talking down to them. And once they think that it doesn't matter that she is on their side on almost every issue. And a large part of what pisses so many people off is that she is a woman who is talking down to them.

Adder is thoughtful enough to take a look at his opinion in context. I do not understand why when someone recognizes (or maybe just suspects) that their opinion may come from a place of sexism or misogyny they are perceived to be weak. You say shit like this:

without a hint of shame. What the fuck? Think about saying this to someone who was thoughtful enough about a negative opinion they had about a black person to admit that opinion may be partly influenced by racism and wonder if that person might want to knock you the fuck out.

Just stop it. I'm sick of this game. If you dislike Obama, there may be many reasons why. One of them might be the fact that you live in a society in which you have been told in all sorts of ways that black people are inferior and white people should be President. If you can't stand Warren, sure a lot of it may be based on her liberal ideas. But surely some of it is the fact that you live in a society that constantly tells you that women shouldn't be in positions of power. Being reminded of that isn't being told how to fucking feel.

In all other things people have the ability to weigh different influences when they are analyzing something. When it comes to racism or sexism, the mere mention of it shuts off that ability. Of course you're sexist. Of course I'm sexist. Hopefully it's just a small part of who we are. Recognizing the fact that these implicit biases exist in us and trying to actively fight them is not weakness. It's strength.

TM

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

"Ungendered." I'm struggling to consider a more frivolous, decadent-but-somehow-boring adjective.

Its comparison to "asexual" -- that there exists context in which this comparison is not unexpected, and such a term probably appears in several newspapers this very minute -- is incredibly sad. Not because it's actually sad, which it of course is not. Because it's incredibly tedious.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Everybody loves Velma. She's everyone's Aunt Who Never Got Married. Think about it... go back to the 70s. You had an Aunt, or maybe an older cousin, who looked just like Velma. She has an apartment in Towson now, collects Chinese bird paintings, travels a bit, and sends you $100 on the holidays. It's weird, because you're 47, but hey -- money's money.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Three hail marys and a our father. Also, you left your testicles in the pew, son. The cleaning staff will throw them out if you forget them.

No. Not there. Fifth pew from the back. But yes... do that, my son. Her criticisms of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are excellent. Her prescriptions for bankruptcy reforms to aid debtors generally are well considered, and should be applauded by both sides of the aisle.

You could be from Buckingham Palace, but if you leave them there, the cleaning staff will throw them out.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

It was great, and it did a very good job of explaining this context. I have to admit at the time I was very much one of the white people you speak of. It wasn't that I couldn't recognize the police misbehavior*, it was that I didn't see how that should apply to Nicole Simpson and Ron whatever being killed.

The documentary did a very good job of showing this white person a very different view.**

* At the time a friend who was a State Police, said "when Fuhrman said 'I have never said the word n----' every cop I know called bullshit."

** At a storytelling show I met a back man who was an LA Police Lieutenant during the King trial. He told stories that were insane. He had white cops pull a gun on him when he was in uniform. The guy running those start of shift meetings you see on TV would tell racist jokes to start the meeting. etc.

Maybe as to me***, but Adder? I just don't see it. Plus he strongly supported a woman, didn't he?

***Not as to Warren who I really have not heard much, but generally.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

People who are unwilling to admit that much of the dislike of Hillary/Elizabeth Warren/[Insert Name of Other Female Politician] as a person has root in misogyny are probably not worth the effort that it took to type that response. If a person is unable to acknowledge that reactions to women who are in power or who would like to be in power include a sexism component (from both women and men) and whose response is "yeah, but I dislike some of that stuff in guys too" aren't having an honest conversation about the longstanding different treatment of women in our society (and most other societies that predate ours).

Fuck, we couldn't even VOTE in this country a hundred years ago. My mother's generation was the first generation (outside of war efforts) that it was commonly acceptable for (white) women to work outside the home (although of course there was backlash to that). Less than 5% of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are women. But no, Hank and Sebby couldn't possibly have any different way of looking at women in powerful positions than the way they look at men. They are so completely evolved that they don't even see gender. :rolleyes:

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I have voted for President 10 times. 7 of those votes were against a candidate, not for the person who got my vote. The three times I voted for someone were all second term (Reagan/W/Obama). I dislike almost all politicians.

With Hil is her gender part of why I wasn't happy to vote for her? I suppose, but there were lots of other reasons, and if I was able to burn out all traces of sexism from my brain I am pretty sure I would still have not been happy with the choice I had to make.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Of course dislike of those two powerful women is rooted significantly in sexism. Neither Hank nor I has seriously disputed that.

But, I honestly don't see gender in re: powerful women. I actually preferred working for women and disliked men. Men are all fucking ego. So often you have to stroke a Napolean, or some nerd with a chip on his shoulder, or deal with some douche or borderline sociopath. I've had much better luck with women in charge. They're not as threatened by you, they tend to be better organized, they don't try to fuck you over as much by taking credit for what subordinates do... And this is huge: Their default emotion isn't anger. With guys, the minutes they're in a tough spot, the anger appears. You have to talk the dumb fuck from screwing up a whole deal, or getting you all sued, because he's in a grudge match with the other side. Being a male, he can't multitask very well, so he's focused on "winning" a conflict with someone and doesn't notice all the future risks he's creating in the process. Women have broader vision. They see the whole chessboard a lot better. Unfortunately, this translates as weakness, while men often running with their dicks out in a room full of papercutters is somehow "leadership."

I dig working for chicks. I even liked it when they treated me in a sexist fashion by calling me cute. Missed my fucking calling... I'd be a fine pool boy.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I thought the first few parts that focused on the environment in LA were eye-opening for someone who is old enough to remember the OJ parts but really didn't understand the context at the time. As you say, great doc.

This is the mantra for our age, when we have a president, and an ardent group of supporters, who think that strength is posing toughness and doing violence to the vulnerable.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

It's nice that you're above the meaning of actual words.

What is it you think the "marm" part of the word means if it's not explicitly feminine?

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

You can tell on account how they each immediately questioned my masculinity for even daring to consider that I may have some gender biases.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Wow. I wonder if you notice that you just described the choices in our last election to a "T" and yet...

TM

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

What you just said is what Adder said in a different way. Do you think I just told you how you need to feel?

TM

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I was visiting a friend in LA when the Rodney King video came out. I don't think I've ever been so sad and terrified all at the same time. To watch 12-15 cops just stand by and watch those fucking assholes beat that man half to death (and then all stick together afterwards) was just absolutely sickening. You cannot then turn around, have the witness who conveniently found the glove tying OJ to the murder at his house be the most disgusting, racist, violent motherfucker without thinking he planted that shit (and for any cop who knew anything about it to remain completely silent). Although I am convinced beyond even a whiff of doubt that OJ murdered Brown and Goldman, I still think Fuhrman planted the glove after he climbed the fence by himself to ensure an easy case.

What I didn't remember was the video of that Korean woman murdering that little girl in cold blood by shooting her in the back of the head as the girl calmly walked away and then having the judge ignore the prosecutor's recommendation of 30 years and give her 5 months probation. I had to turn the documentary off for a little while.

TM

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

That's where I ended up too.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

I have not read all of these posts and I know it is a complete waste of fucking time to try to discuss anything rationally with you these days, but do you have any idea of what a complete fucking moronic douchebag you are coming off as? Adder admits that part of his negative reaction to a woman politician may have some root is stereotypes relating to women, and you call him a sackless pussy? If Adder had said he disliked Jesse Jackson as a politician, but he conceded that some of his dislike may be on account of some race-based stereotypes he harbored, would you call him a spineless n----- lover? Why not? Because you are more scared of Thurgreed than you are of ncs? Because these days it is o.k. to call a presidential candidate a fucking bitch, but you still need to tiptoe around the n-word? And please tell me that you didn't say that "don't see gender." Or that "schoolmarm" has no gender associated with it.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Do you know how humorless you've become?

His admission was so unnecessary and so silly it deserved a joke response. Is schoolmarm a sexist stereotype? Yes. Technically. Is this something worth discussing? I guess if we've really set the bar for what's interesting below watching paint dry.

The proper question to use when employing this imbecilic device is, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Perhaps because that hypothetical remains, um... hypothetical? Absurdly so.

I'm not sure what reality you live in, but the one involving Adder suggesting Warren was schoolmarmy is not the same one in which you apparently exist, in which someone here is calling Hillary a fucking bitch.

Check.

I used asexual. But that's close enough. Check.

NCS can handle herself. If she doesn't like what I've said, we have this neat little thing called free speech. She can type words on on a keyboard that say, "Fuck you, Sebby." Unlike you, however, she has a sense of humor. Rediscover yours.

ETA: It's odd you've taken the position that certain points of view or jokes are outside those people are allowed to offer here, even ironically. It's also highly patronizing for you to assert this sort of high handed pap, as though you speak for women who can't speak for themselves.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

Dude, "it was all just a joke??" You suck at this more than Milo.

Re: But it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or girl.
 

You might also file it under Low Hanging Fruit.