prev <-> next
[2012-07-09 00:22:00] - http://imgur.com/Ir3wJ so, hot weekend in DC huh - aaron
[2012-07-07 11:39:01] - Aaron: Oh, wow. I had no idea. I can totally hear it, though, now that I know. -Paul
[2012-07-07 10:01:32] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s9_pi9vQbs did any other mass effect players see this commercial, and totally not realize whose voice it was??? totally slipped by me! - aaron
[2012-07-07 09:52:58] - and Nash on the Lakers, bleh. another annoying trade to see - vinnie
[2012-07-07 09:25:07] - Sad, but not completely surprising. I wish it had been any team but the Heat. Going to be hard rooting against Ray Allen. -Paul
[2012-07-07 09:19:21] - http://sports.yahoo.com/news/allen-chooses-sign-miami-heat-020158953--nba.html
[2012-07-06 16:12:48] - Paul: Dwight Howard drinks Sprite? -- Xpovos
[2012-07-06 15:07:43] - mig: Apparently he is an idiot? I don't know. He's becoming a bit like Favre to me now. I really don't care if he stays (comes back) or goes (retires), I just want to stop hearing about him. -Paul
[2012-07-06 14:00:18] - The whole Dwight Howard thing has me mystified. Why on earth did he agree to take the 1 year option a few months ago if he wants to be in Brooklyn that badly? - mig
[2012-07-06 13:26:24] - I've been very happy with the Celtics' offseason moves so far, though. If they can re-sign Ray Allen and either Fab Melo or Jared Sullinger works out... then they should be a MUCH better team than the one that took Miami to 7 games last season. -Paul
[2012-07-06 13:25:02] - Daniel: Yeah, I feel like your GM is trying to come up with some big move, but for each 2 or 3 good moves he makes, it's overwhelmed by a terrible one, and since he hasn't been able to make a big move yet, he is stuck with a bunch of fowards now. -Paul
[2012-07-06 13:19:13] - One thing I'm wondeiring: If the Knicks do match it they are going to take a really super huge hit in luxury tax over the next few years. Does the money collected from the luxury tax get funnelled to other teams? If so, the Knicks matching the offer sort of helps them out through the revenue sharing. - mig
[2012-07-06 13:13:14] - daniel: from what I've been reading it sounds like the Knicks will very likely match the Rocket's offer on Jeremy Lin. - mig
[2012-07-06 13:09:59] - worth noting*'
[2012-07-06 13:09:44] - There are theories that the owner doesn't want to tank to lose ticket sales and having won championships in the 90's is content to just float along in the middle at a profit. Its hard to be 100% on that but it does fit the last few years. Its also worth nothing that we've set up to try and trade for several different people along the way just no one would bite-Daniel
[2012-07-06 13:07:56] - Paul: Mostly sadness. We started off so hopeful. Now we have a team of like 8 power forwards or something. People on a rockets msg board are trying to decide if we are finally tanking and are rooting for Chicago and NYC to match our offers. Houston just hasn't been able to attract any FA's in forever and is super stuck in the mediocre zone. -Daniel
[2012-07-06 12:08:33] - Daniel: What are your thoughts on the off-season moves for the Rockets? I loved most of their moves right up to the draft, but have been scratching my head ever since. They went from having two point guards to probably having none now? -Paul
[2012-07-06 10:32:10] - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/w44co/i_am_serj_tankian_ama/c5a1y17 serj tankian is doing an AMA on reddit... this is the only question i wanted answered - aaron
[2012-07-06 10:10:46] - paul: woo! monoprice! - aaron
[2012-07-06 09:11:18] - Vinnie: Reminds me of A/V cables at places like Best Buy (where they are often $60+) compared to buying online at places like Monoprice ($5). -Paul
[2012-07-06 08:31:52] - vinnie: 900! ~a
[2012-07-06 08:25:00] - ...but still, 1000% difference? - vinnie
[2012-07-06 08:24:32] - xpovos: heh I've seen that kind of thing on Amazon too. figured it was just a prank. this is not explainable the same way but I when my old cell phone needed a new battery, the Sprint store was charging something like $60 for it and recommended I get a new phone instead. Checked Amazon and there was one for $6. Granted, the store probably guarantees theirs...
[2012-07-05 10:32:24] - Xpovos: That IS pretty interesting. Gurkie recently came across what is probably a similar situation, where she was shopping for something that should've cost a few dollars but which some retailers were selling for (I believe) hundreds of dollars. -Paul
[2012-07-05 10:18:06] - Trying to understand some strange economic behaviors I'm seeing led me to this blog post, which I found amusing. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358 -- Xpovos
[2012-07-04 20:13:42] - paul, sent. ~a
[2012-07-04 13:02:14] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPVTHbJc-_o&feature=related justin bieber solving rubiks cube -- this looks super legit! you can tell with his finger technique he really knows what he's doing. i would peg him around 90 seconds average, i'm really surprised he has this kind of random talent! - aaron
[2012-07-04 11:34:45] - a: Frisbee this weekend? -Paul
[2012-07-03 08:55:51] - apache mod auth digest (link) does this. ~a
[2012-07-03 08:55:13] - "but that means the server has to store every key and secret in plaintext, right?" nope. they often store the secret hashed. then that means the client has to hash the password, then hash again with the message. and the key they're storing in plaintext is the public key so that's nbd. ~a
[2012-07-03 08:30:56] - pierce: the most complicated thing I've had to deal with authentication is CAC cards, but this sounds a little more complex than anything I've dealt with before. - mig
[2012-07-03 07:17:43] - I mean, unless your company is a titan of industry, you probably can't afford the level of infrastructure security where no one has the production database key, and that person would be one query away from being able to access your API as if they were any user (and that's just the most simple example). - pierce
[2012-07-03 07:12:31] - hence me feeling like I'm missing something. the big players mostly use OAuth, and I highly doubt they would've overlooked something like this. but everything I find basically glosses over the issue saying "secure your credential store as you would any sensitive data". that can't be it, right? - pierce
[2012-07-03 07:08:38] - this is in contrast to passwords, where an attacker can't impersonate a client just by getting your security data; if you're doing it correctly (salting and hashing passwords), you don't *have* the consumer's password. - pierce
[2012-07-03 07:05:09] - the huge disadvantage is that, if the server's security data is breached, every single client is compromised and the only way to recover is to revoke the credentials for every single one. when a lot of your service clients are applications, you can't expect them to be able to easily switch out for new credentials. - pierce
[2012-07-03 07:01:11] - but that means the server has to store every key and secret in plaintext, right? isn't that a major security risk compared to passwords? yes, there's an advantage that you don't transmit the full credentials with every request, but that's not much of an advantage as long as you're using HTTPS or other TLS. - pierce
[2012-07-03 06:58:23] - I feel like I'm missing something. as I understand it, you have to generate a consumer key and a shared secret for each client. then, on each request, they include the key, and securely sign the message using the secret (but they don't send it over the wire). the server then verifies the key by checking the signature using its own copy of the shared secret. - pierce
[2012-07-03 06:55:03] - I wish I was here on a social call, but I need a sanity check. google's not helping and it's the only thing I know. have any of you used OAuth 2-legged authentication? - pierce
[2012-07-03 06:53:51] - hey folks, long time no see. - pierce
[2012-07-02 15:34:37] - because mriou didnt have interest? ~a
[2012-07-02 09:45:13] - a: Maybe you should set something up on the message board like prosper.com.
A modification to mriou? -Paul[2012-07-02 09:28:32] - aaron: Whats the name of the widget / do you have a link for that? Sounds interesting. -Daniel
[2012-07-01 22:11:43] - "If so, shoot me an email" does that mean you aren't going to be responding to questions here? ~a
[2012-07-01 22:07:02] - oh, is this not related to weand ventures? you're offering us ownership of your house? ~a
[2012-07-01 22:04:53] - dewey: you have to offer stake in the company or nobody will be interested. ~a
[2012-07-01 10:08:33] - If so, shoot me an email. Thanks! -Dewey
[2012-07-01 10:07:11] - Hey, so who is interested in making 5% return on a cash investment in the Weand home purchase? We are looking to raise some cash for closing and willing to offer you some good money at the same time. -Dewey
[2012-06-30 00:57:52] - there's an Android widget I can put on my home screen which tells me how long it takes to get home! not bad! - aaron
[2012-06-29 16:58:56] - g: Yeah, I thought I remembered that. I know doctors also do charitable work in the US, though, it's just that the need is usually greater overseas. -Paul
[2012-06-29 16:57:16] - for example my sister has been on at least 3 charitable trips in Egypt, Bhutan, and ... elsewhere Phillipines I think? ~g
[2012-06-29 16:52:16] - Paul: from what I am aware of Drs do charitable works, but they go on trips overseas to do their charitable works for poor countries... ~g
[2012-06-29 16:08:22] - Xpovos: I know. I'm just wondering how far a will carry this out.
-Paul[2012-06-29 16:04:01] - Paul: at the risk of putting words into a's mouth, it's not the number of doctors, it's the amount each doctor does. 99.8% see one pro bono person, the 0.1% sees 10? 20? Regardless, the point is that even if every doctor provides charitable care, it doesn't cover the need because the doctor to patient ratio is bad and it can't be a 1:1 situation. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 16:00:53] - a: And do you think that's enough? Or do we need to nationalize the health care industry to bring that last 0.1% on board? -Paul
[2012-06-29 15:59:47] - paul: 99.9% ~a
[2012-06-29 15:59:10] - However, healthcare, by it's current nature in the modern world, particularly the U.S. with the atrocious alignment of government and insurance companies, it is a reasonable and prudent belief, if not one I hold, that ONLY the federal government could actually perform the task, and therefore that is the answer under subsidiarity. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 15:58:08] - That is, ideally the individual, or the family takes care of the situation. If he, or they, cannot, then it moves up to the community then to the local jurisdiction, then to the extraordinary jurisdiction, etc. This is known as subsidiarity. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 15:57:24] - aaron: I'm not adamantly opposed to universal health care as a government function. I believe that humans have a fundamental dignity that requires respect, which can include health care. However, it's a major principle of mine and the religion I'm in line with that these issues be dealt with at the lowest possible 'level' of society. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 15:56:11] - And if not the doctors themselves, then charitable organizations paying money to the doctors on behalf of the needy. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 15:54:24] - a: Hmmm, I don't think so. What percentage of doctors do you think do charitable work? -Paul
[2012-06-29 15:52:54] - i think paul sometimes overestimates the charitable work that doctors often do. ~a
[2012-06-29 15:46:20] - aaron: Through charity? I think sometimes people underestimate charitable works that doctors often do. And even if you don't believe in private charity, isn't that what Medicare is for? -Paul
[2012-06-29 15:39:28] - so i guess that's my remaining question; if anybody here is against government involvement in health care, how do the poorest 5% receive care? when $15 is 3 days worth of food, how can any free-market health care provider find profit in providing care for someone at that level of poverty? - aaron
[2012-06-29 15:37:38] - doesn't cover how the "free market solution" would address care for the very poor. i guess, he just thinks it would be cheap enoguh that even poor people could afford it - but i don't think that's true. some conservatives seem to assume charity will take care of it, which might be more realistic. - aaron
[2012-06-29 15:36:27] - this post and the posts stemming off if it also have some really good discussion; his idea is that free-market health insurance would be more viable if it were scaled back to exclude routine procedures (checkups, physicals), although it still - aaron
[2012-06-29 15:33:57] - and they cite examples where back in the 1910s-1930s large swaths of america went without electricity because it wasn't profitable for electric companies to provide electricity... so similarly, free market health care would probably only cover the most profitable 95% of the market - aaron
[2012-06-29 15:32:33] - mostly stuff we've talked about here; conservatives agree that everybody needs health care, but a free market solution would be more efficient... liberals yield that a free market might be more efficient, but only as long as there was "money to be made" and that many people at the poorest end of the spectrum, it's just not profitable to cover them, - aaron
[2012-06-29 15:28:55] - http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/vs8e2/reddit_as_an_australian_i_have_grown_up_with/ some really intelligent discussion from both sides about why so many people in the US seem to be against universal health care, something which is often seen as a staple in western democracy. - aaron
[2012-06-29 14:42:47] - aaron: yeah I'm not sure I could get over that either. It seems like the same problem I'm had with the Mass Effect 3 extended cut. I'm pretty sure I liked it, but can't seem to separate it from the original. - mig
[2012-06-29 14:32:41] - mig: ooh! i didn't know anything about it. sounds good, although schwarznegger really made the original film for me, i don't know if i would enjoy it without him in it... - aaron
[2012-06-29 14:18:35] - And one day I will learn to close my HTML tags properly. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 14:18:26] - It's a book in blog form, still being written, by a MD on his perception of the changes to the profession over the past 30 years in specific, but the past 100 or so in general. He's anti-Obamacare, but his reasoning may surprise you if you just go in with that assumption. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 14:18:15] - <a href="http://covertrationingblog.com/open-wide-and-say-moo-the-good-citizens-guide-to-right-thinking-and-right-actions/introduction"I recommend this</a>. I'm enjoying the read so far. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:54:54] - mig: Seems unnecessary, but any movie with Kate Beckinsale in it will grab my attention. If it looks good enough, I'll probably at least Netflix it. -Paul
[2012-06-29 13:52:46] - mig: I've not seen any previews, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Dick's story is good enough that it can be reimagined like what I'm seeing and work very well. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:49:02] - It's not out for a while, but what does everyone think of the Total Recall remake so far? ... I'm unsure what to make of it. - mig
[2012-06-29 13:43:43] - Paul: Heh, I know, but I had to tease. I'm OK with that assuming we can get baby-sitting. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:42:24] - g: Not Matthew Bomer? -Paul
[2012-06-29 13:41:56] - mig: Not sure I understand your point. I'm saying that in order for the mandate to be effective (in preventing the free-loader problem), the tax needs to be high enough where for the vast majority of people it's cheaper to just get insurance, right? -Paul
[2012-06-29 13:40:55] - I heard Channing Tatum got his start as a stripper... ~g
[2012-06-29 13:40:02] - Paul: Hmmm that might be fun
Ill be drooling over Channing Tatum and Matthew McCaunaghey while you watch a grotesque teddy bear... Works for me! ~g[2012-06-29 13:39:29] - Xpovos: Heh, sorry. I didn't mean "the girls" as in your wife and daughters. I meant the wives of the guys who were seeing Ted. -Paul
[2012-06-29 13:38:02] - The requirement to cover people with pre-existing conditions doesn't kick in until the mandate does, I thought. - mig
[2012-06-29 13:37:55] - Paul: Pretty sure that's not appropriate for my daughters to see. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:29:37] - xpovos: hmmm, yes that could work. - mig
[2012-06-29 13:29:16] - Xpovos: Completely off topic, but on the topic of seeing Ted... maybe the girls can go out and see Magic Mike while the guys see Ted? -Paul
[2012-06-29 13:21:10] - "I'm sure it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions" But don't insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions (and not discriminate against people with them) now? Isn't that the whole reason we need an individual mandate (and why the "tax" has to be high enough to try to force everybody to buy insurance rather than just pay the tax)? -Paul
[2012-06-29 13:19:32] - a: To continue my thought, even if it covers pre-existing conditions the 10K deductible kind of limits it, everything is going to be paid for out of pocket until you hit 12500 of qualified care, basically. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:18:23] - mig: Back to enforcement, if the insurance isn't employer provided, it'll be bought through the networks built by each state, right? I'm sure there'll be a tax-equivalent (call it "1099-HCPIC") document to demonstrate purchase of the insurance. And that's why tax everyone, prove to get a credit works, it puts the burden of enforcing on the people themselves. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:16:07] - a: It was Aetna. I'm sure it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions--if they can still get away with that. It covers a hypothetical 31-year old male by himself. The 300/month is probably because of pooling issues. A 31-year old male by himself doesn't consume much healthcare. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:15:26] - Especially in the first 2 years of enforcement, where the penalty is so small it seems like a waste of time and effort to try and enforce it at all. - mig
[2012-06-29 13:12:33] - xpovos: ah right, if you get insurance through your employer, it seems simple enough. How many people don't, though? If it's a signficant number I just don't know how they can just want to go through and vet all that documentation. - mig
[2012-06-29 13:11:23] - and by shitty i mean: i pay for a ton of my dentist/doctor/eye_sight stuff out of pocket. ~a
[2012-06-29 13:10:59] - "I (using my demographics) could buy a (probably terrible) insurance plan for myself for $65/month" that is from what provider? who does it cover? does it cover pre-existing conditions? the people in my company with families have insurance that is about 1100/month. my shitty covers-nothing POS health insurance is 300/month. ~a
[2012-06-29 13:08:13] - mig: Best bet, everyone gets the tax then you provide documentation on your 1040 to get a credit. The insurance proof and costs are already going onto the W2, so we're halfway (3/4, 95%?) there. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:07:06] - aaron: Those are the maximum premiums. Dude, I'm going to save so much money... my premiums are way higher than that now. But that's an aside. The premiums I found were trying to answer gurkie's question of what the minimum was, so I gave concrete examples for myself and my family. Answer: pretty cheap, and far less than the tax amount. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:06:59] - xpovos: right the IRS is the institution enforcing, I'm just wondering how they're going to do it practically. - mig
[2012-06-29 13:05:00] - mig: IRS. There's a reason they started hiring a lot more last year. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 13:03:02] - a: aww june 26 almost seems too easy! i love those! - aaron
[2012-06-29 13:02:14] - Actually now that I think about it ... how actually are they going to enforce this? - mig
[2012-06-29 12:59:44] - xpovos: so it sounds like if i'm interpreting the penalties/out-of-pocket premium caps correctly, the premiums will be about 2.5% of your income and the insurance will be about 3.5% of your income? so you could save about $300/yr-$400 by going uninsured, probably not worth it, especially since it's insurance for a family of 4 - aaron
[2012-06-29 12:58:14] - xpovos: for a 4-person household i think the FPL is $23k so... the maximum annual premium for a 4-person household making $23k would be $441/year? and if your income was $46k then it goes up to $2,700 a year? i guess that's around 2-5% for employed american citizens - aaron
[2012-06-29 12:54:53] - insurance unless the difference is signficant. I'd do it if it saved me $1000, but probably not for $50. - mig
[2012-06-29 12:54:28] - xpovos: i think the answer to your question is on this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPACA_Premium_CRS.jpg but i'm too dumb to read it - aaron
[2012-06-29 12:54:02] - xpovos: fair points. I guess it really depends on how they actually implement the way tthis tax works. Do they just flat out increase everyone's taxes and then have an deduction item for having insurance on your tax return forms? Putting aside honesty enforcement issues if this is the implementation, I'm not sure I would undergo the hassel of going to get ...
[2012-06-29 12:50:46] - The better plans (again, just for me) are almost $200/month. Picking up my wife and kids the $65 plan goes to $270 and the better plans go to $600-$700. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 12:47:48] - Source: Aetna... "VA PPO Value 10000View Plan Details Total Premium: $65.00 | Medical Premium: $65.00" That's their 'catastrophic' plan. $10K deductible and 20% of costs over $10K up to an additional $12,500. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 12:45:57] - Caveats: That plan probably doesn't meat the minimum requirements set out by the new law. The plan costs could change dramatically as a result of the law even if it does meet the minimum requirements. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 12:45:16] - g: I (using my demographics) could buy a (probably terrible) insurance plan for myself for $65/month. Not only is that less than 2.5% of my salary (thankfully) it's less than the minimum fee currently available to be applied when the law goes into effect. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 12:41:33] - g: I am totally going to use some of those in my next meeting. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 12:40:47] - xpovos: yea thats what its supposed to be, although does anyone know what the cheapest level of insurance is that you can buy? ~g
[2012-06-29 12:40:23] - they asked if it was management me coming out, I said I hate to lose
~g[2012-06-29 12:40:19] - a: I'm saying it's a shit ton to pay as a tax to not get insurance. It's very clearly a strong incentive to go get some kind of insurance. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 12:40:08] - a: I guess you are going for client meetings then rather than internal company meetings? As I already said I am way too chicken. My team wanted to turn it into a contest on our team where points are awarded I told them no. ~g
[2012-06-29 12:39:24] - xpovos: I gotta agree 2.5% of your salary is really low for health insurance if unsubsidized by your company. I imagine most of us have subsidized health insurance or in a's case subsideizes health insurance... ~g
[2012-06-29 12:35:50] - g: good point. it becomes murder because you're bringing down your employees too. ~a
[2012-06-29 12:35:24] - xpovos: 2.5% of your salary? that's impossibly cheap for health insurance. what am i missing? 12-16% of salary still seems like cheap insurance to me unless you're getting paid a shit-ton or unless you're not supporting anyone else. are we counting that employers often subsidize insurance or not? ~a
[2012-06-29 12:33:59] - a: when you own the company I am not sure its suicide
~g[2012-06-29 12:30:42] - g: i'm in. who else is in? i've been in a lot of meetings today so i wish we had seen this earlier! i'll see what i can do tuesday (i'm at the beach monday). only if somebody is into this suicide pact with me. ~a
[2012-06-29 12:17:52] - I cant make myself even try... http://sandperson.tumblr.com/ ~g
[2012-06-29 11:38:58] - Daniel: No problem, and no rush. I just wanted to make sure it didn't end up in your spam folder. -Paul
[2012-06-29 11:37:10] - Paul: Yes sorry I haven't accepted yet. I keep forgetting when I'm at home. -Daniel
[2012-06-29 11:34:21] - Daniel: Also, did you get the invite to the ESPN fantasy football leagues? -Paul
[2012-06-29 11:31:36] - Xpovos: 2.5% actually seems really cheap for health insurance. Isn't unsubsidized (by your employer) health insurance ridiculously expensive? -Paul
[2012-06-29 11:27:13] - aaron: that is sad, some countries have a life expectancy of less than 50...
~g[2012-06-29 11:24:47] - yea its whichever is greater... ~g
[2012-06-29 11:24:32] - 'only' $700 in cases where the AGI is 28,000 or less. Since most people make more than that, the 2.5% kicks in. 2.5% seems like an awful lot to pay for health insurance to me, particularly since it doesn't actually get you insurance! But then again, I'm young and healthy, right? -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 11:23:28] - mig: It's whichever is greater, right? That means it's
[2012-06-29 11:09:06] - aaron: according to this the penalty will start at $95/year or 1% of income, which is kind of laughable. 2 years later it rises to $700/year or 2.5% of income, maybe that's a high enough penalty to incentivize purchasing insurance, but I have my doubts. - mig
[2012-06-29 10:30:47] - paul: YES he needs two terms or the bet's no fair! bush had two terms to increase the deficit, how can obama be expected to compete with only one term - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:29:52] - Aaron: Or maybe banning 32 oz beverages doesn't reverse obesity and we start dying off earlier from diabetes even though we get higher quality care from Obamacare? There are just too many variables, it seems. -Paul
[2012-06-29 10:29:31] - mig: i don't understand, isn't that the point of the individual penalty in PPACA? so you either pay $2,000 a year (or whatever) for insurance or $1,500 a year as a penalty? i guess you're saying people will defer insurance so they can save $500 (assuming the penalty costs less than the insurance cap?) - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:28:34] - but if ER treatments decline AND costs in general go down ... I think that could be marked down as a victory for the law. - mig
[2012-06-29 10:28:22] - Aaron: What worries me is that what if we're going to find the cure for cancer (or something similarly dramatic) in the next 5 years regardless of Obamacare or no Obamacare? I'm guessing that would dominate the statistics above and beyond any health care reform. -Paul
[2012-06-29 10:26:00] - aaron: Really, I'm just hoping for a single (and probably overly simplistic) metric we can use to make another bet like our Obama-debt-increase bet.
(By the way, did we decide Obama needs a second term in order to fairly judge him?) -Paul[2012-06-29 10:25:19] - aaron: Also, the best stuff is expensive, and not everyone has access to the best stuff. The problem with the ACA is that it's likely to result in a situation where no one has access to the best stuff. Both ends of the distribution are going to get trimmed as we merge to a median. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 10:24:54] - http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=c&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&idim=country:USA:IND: hey what a fun toy! life expectancy charts... - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:23:22] - aaron: If ER treatments go down, while probably seen as a good indicator, by itself I wouldn't call that a success. ER treatment has been typically described as the free-rider problem, but with the new law you will have a new type of free rider: the person who waits until they get sick to get insurance, and you have to take that into account as well. - mig
[2012-06-29 10:22:26] - Aaron: Fair enough, although there are already other factors which affect things like life expectancy that I think is outside of health care systems (unless you think Cuba has a better health care system than us). -Paul
[2012-06-29 10:21:36] - a: me... ~g
[2012-06-29 10:20:14] - a: yes, i think obesity, diet, and level of physical activity are pulling our numbers down. or at least, it's one way to explain how the "sickest country" still has "the best stuff" - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:20:13] - a: Yeah, I guess that was my thought. Life expectancy should be going up just thanks to technological breakthroughs, so the ACA would have to royally screw up (IMHO) to decrease it. -Paul
[2012-06-29 10:19:18] - paul: i'd say a more stringent measure of american health care would be whether or not life expectancy/infant mortality improves faster/slower than other countries. if denmark's LE goes up to 95 years, and we go up to 80 years, that's obviously doesn't speak well of our health care system - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:17:21] - aaron: we're obese. it's also not measuring what life-saving drugs are developed by US companies. i still like your link anyways, there's a lot to distill there. ~a
[2012-06-29 10:17:20] - paul: yes, i think if life expectancy/infant mortality goes down that would be an EXTREME failing of obamacare. honestly, i'd consider it a failing if it just didn't improve quickly enough. and if americans seeking emergency care goes up yeah i'd say that's a failing too - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:16:07] - paul: unless they were going to go down (or up respectively) anyways. ~a
[2012-06-29 10:15:37] - actually that second link is pretty informative, it shows that the US spends about twice the %GDP as denmark on health care, and we have twice as much "stuff per person" but we still lag behind other countries as far as objective measures of health - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:15:03] - aaron: OK, as long as we compare apples to apples, I think that's a reasonable statistic to include in our data. After all, it's widely held that emergency care is more expensive than traditional care, so reducing that number (really? 41.4% currently?) would be a good thing and reduce costs. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 10:14:03] - though to be fair it likely would not have changed the overall outcome of the case, save for maybe surprise justice deaths/retirements. But it's still a bit troubling they clearly ignored a law regarding their jurisdiction that blantantly. - mig
[2012-06-29 10:13:30] - aaron: So if life expectancy goes down or percentage of Americans seeking emergency care goes up, that would be considered a failure of Obamacare? -Paul
[2012-06-29 10:13:04] - paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png health care spending per capita would show whether costs are decreasing, and http://demockracy.com/tag/mri-units-per-1-million-persons/ something like "MRI units per 1 million persons" could demonstrate access to high-level medical equipment - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:10:42] - Mivos: Sorry about that. Not sure how I missed such a big discussion from yesterday. Thanks. -Paul
[2012-06-29 10:10:34] - xpovos: yeah, these CDC numbers count it as 2 visits which is fine. in your case, if he had an infection, it's possible it was because a nurse shat in his wound or something, something which president obama is against - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:10:28] - g: who backed out?!
~a[2012-06-29 10:09:29] - paul: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/ervisits.htm some numbers like this are good, 41.4 emergency room visits per 100 people; emergency room visits are sometimes (not always) a sign of people deferring preventative treatment, or not being given access to high-quality preventative treatment. so something like this would go decrease, hopefully - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:09:21] - aaron: Would a repeat visit to the ER count against the statistic? E.g. A man falls and breaks his hip, then later, after being released is re-admitted to emergency care because of a raging infection. He's just one person in the percentage of the population, but now he has two visits. One number is a firm %, the other is a relational %. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 10:07:27] - mig: That was the line of the reddit, IMO. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 10:05:48] - paul: i think you could quantify the quality of american health care based on the percentage of americans seeking emergency care, the average american life expectancy, and the average out-of-pocket cost for a routine kind of procedure (let's say childbirth) - aaron
[2012-06-29 10:05:39] - paul: yeah basically the majority essentially ignored the law so they could get in their preferred decision now, despite the law being quite clear that this should have been punted to 2014 if they ruled it a tax. But, as the lawyer on reddit said, Roberts could have justified it by saying "SPACE ALIENS" the ruling would be just as valid. - mig
[2012-06-29 10:04:24] - mig: So he did. Apologies to both. I should've seen that, it was still on the same page! -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 10:00:29] - xpovos: aaron linked the reddit thread not me. - mig
[2012-06-29 09:57:06] - The pessen mobile now has an open seat for tomorrow, and we have an extra golf frisbee (mid range) which can be borrowed. ~g
[2012-06-29 09:55:29] - Both mig and I commented on the AIA issue yesterday, with some incredulity. The constitutional lawyer on reddit that mig linked also discussed it in the context of "eh, they basically just ignored it to get the ruling in now, since they were taking the time to review the case." -- Xpovos
[2012-06-29 09:51:59] - People more knowledgeable about the law than I: I just realized something about the ACA ruling from yesterday. If the mandate was upheld because it was considered a tax, shouldn't the Anti-Injunction Act mean that the Supreme Court can't rule on it yet? -Paul
[2012-06-29 09:26:48] - Daniel: And I didn't even mention future innovations (because I consider it a part of quality of care, and because it's even more impossible to measure). Who knows if we're discovering more or less new medicines and cures than before? -Paul
[2012-06-29 09:25:56] - Daniel: "How do we tell if quality of care has improved or gotten worse?" That's the big problem. I have no idea how we'll tell. Some things (like rationing of care) are easy to notice. But it's harder to tell if your time with the doctor is lessened or your access to things like MRIs are reduced. -Paul
[2012-06-29 09:24:19] - if the penalty/tax for PPACA is structured the same way, I think it's reasonable to expect people gaming the system, which doesn't bode well for costs. - mig
[2012-06-29 09:24:06] - Daniel: Well, I actually would be shocked if the number of uninsured DIDN'T go down. I just don't think the ultimate measure of health care in the US is very strongly correlated to that. -Paul
[2012-06-29 09:22:04] - paul: yeah it is kind of hard to tell for mass's plan. One thing that is certainly not distubately is that insurance coverage has gone up to like 98% (no surprise there). There's criticism that the fine for not having insurance is so small compared to the cost of insurance that people will game the system that way. - mig
[2012-06-29 09:20:07] - Paul: When you say reducing the quality of care how are you defining that? How do we tell if quality of care has improved or gotten worse? -Daniel
[2012-06-29 09:18:59] - Paul: I think a couple of factors could/would be the number(maybe percentage) of insured vs uninsured people in the US. How much money as a country we are spending on healthcare? That one is tough though. Like health care costs could go down but if we continue to get fatter as a nation then we might still end up spending more overall. Hmm -Daniel
[2012-06-29 09:14:33] - I would've suggested seeing how Massachusetts pans out compared to other states over the next few years, but I don't know if that comparison is going to work if Obamacare goes into effect. -Paul
[2012-06-29 09:11:54] - Are there any supporters of the law here who could tell me if there is any reasonable outcome in the next decade or so where they would change their mind and admit that Obamacare didn't work out? -Paul
[2012-06-29 09:11:05] - So, I'm of the belief that Obamacare as currently constructed is a bad idea that is going to end up either costing more or reducing the quality of care or both. Having said that, I see it as being similar to the debate about the stimulus where it's virtually impossible to tell because there is no control. -Paul
[2012-06-28 19:22:12] - http://media.reason.com/mc/psuderman/2012_06/atax.jpg?h=280&w=231 ackbar parodies always bring a smile to my face. - mig
[2012-06-28 17:53:26] - mig: I see it as a short term political win for the Republicans but a long term political win for the Democrats and for the expansion of government in general. Because once the fervor wears off people will come to terms with the fact that this law is not going to be repealed. The Republicans are not going to win 13 senatorial seats. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 16:16:14] - I was under the impression that this court decision wouldn't affect the upcoming elections all that much. Now I'm not so sure. - mig
[2012-06-28 16:13:59] - Democrats ultimately got what they wanted, but republicans now with some perceived legitamacy claim PPACA is tax increases for the middle class, something the dems have been desparately trying to avoid framing the law as. - mig
[2012-06-28 16:11:32] - The really strange part about this whole thing: did anyone really win? - mig
[2012-06-28 15:40:42] - mig: Those are Robert's words. Some of the most political tap dancing I've ever read in a SCOTUS opinion. IMO if you want to call it tax, fine, get the definitions fixed into the law properly and then slam the AIA on it. Kick the political football down the road. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 15:39:16] - aaron: I'm willing to drive to the Fairfax area theatres if it means spending time with you guys. I can't do that often, but I'm sure I can fit something in. Not this weekend. But next weekend looks potentially open. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 15:19:56] - "The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax." .... my head hurts. - mig
[2012-06-28 15:10:03] - http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vqncg/iama_constitutional_lawyer_verified_here_to/ constitutional lawyer answers questions about the obamacare ruling; useful resource for people like me who weren't 100% sure about what was being decided, or what the ruling means, etc - aaron
[2012-06-28 15:02:20] - xpovos: do you think you'll have a free weekend some time over the next few weeks? do you want to pick a theater that's a compromise between our two locations? i don't know how many other people we'll pull in! - aaron
[2012-06-28 14:23:25] - I saw a preview and was utterly shocked into laughter. I imagine it could be a fun movie to see 'with the guys'. Katie encouraged me in that line of thought. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 14:04:03] - aaron: definitely not this weekend, but I am interested in seeing it. - mig
[2012-06-28 13:57:25] - Aaron: I'm interested, but not sure if I have the time. -Paul
[2012-06-28 13:19:06] - a: huh that's odd, i'm sure it was right when I copied/pasted it, oh wells. - mig
[2012-06-28 13:17:14] - http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120627/REVIEWS/120629973 roger ebert gave seth macfarlane's potty mouth teddy bear movie 3.5/4 stars. anybody want to see it? - aaron
[2012-06-28 13:14:14] - oh nm, it was your typo: http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/issa-to-obama-what-happened-to-obamacare ~a
[2012-06-28 13:13:14] - mig: your page was deleted maybe? ~a
[2012-06-28 13:12:00] - paul: yay! - aaron
[2012-06-28 12:52:56] - Aaron: I see it as a yes on google calendar and I also got an email notifying me that you had responded. I don't recall if you had answered previously, though. -Paul
[2012-06-28 12:39:08] - g: weird, alright, well i updated my "yes" response to include a note? is it showing now? - aaron
[2012-06-28 12:03:51] - http://reason.com/blog/2012/0/28/issa-to-obama-what-happened-to-obamacare yeah I would say challenges to the law are not quite done with yet. - mig
[2012-06-28 11:47:06] - Posit that it did help him get elected. Now what? Does the state have a recall option, if so is this worthy, is it fast enough. If it doesn't, the bum can be voted out at the end of his term. 2 years? 4? Longer? Is that sufficient, or is a faster remediation required, and if so what could it be? (Short of assassination, I should think). -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 11:34:23] - g: he could have, but what he was being prosecuted for was a statement he made at a public meeting while he was introducing himself. He was not under oath, nor did his statement have really any relevance to the meeting. - mig
[2012-06-28 11:26:33] - But couldnt the guy claiming to be a war hero have helped him get elected? Which I think is fairly similar. ~g
[2012-06-28 11:13:32] - g: It is shady and reasonable to be annoyed, and grounds for termination, if not any other legal pursuit. That said, if a misrepresentation resulted in contract or other money issues, it could be fraud too, as mig suggested. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 11:06:41] - mig: I agree that the acknowledgement that it violates the commerce clause is at least a minor victory. It did always seem a little bit of a technicality about fining people for not getting insurance vs taxing people without insurance vs providing tax breaks for people who have insurance, etc. -Paul
[2012-06-28 11:04:16] - g: that would be covered already by fraud laws, wouldn't it? - mig
[2012-06-28 11:02:17] - Eh what if you lied about criteria critical to the job? I know people who in college had claimed double majors they didnt have and got jobs based on that. A bunch of us thought it incredibly shady and were annoyed. ~g
[2012-06-28 11:00:23] - aaron: calendar still shows you as a non response . ~g
[2012-06-28 10:53:23] - Is stuff like libel only illegal if it's untrue? -Paul
[2012-06-28 10:51:45] - Daniel: Yeah, 5-4 upholding the mandate was one of the outcomes I was pretty certain WASN'T going to happen.
-Paul[2012-06-28 10:47:13] - mig: That seems reasonable to rule that not a crime. I mean if I lied and told people I was a Stanley Cup champion to get a job that doesn't seem like it should be illegal. I guess its not good but it seems an extra step to make it a crime. -Daniel
[2012-06-28 10:44:07] - g: sure i'm going, i'm pretty sure i RSVPed a few days ago - aaron
[2012-06-28 10:42:10] - In other news, Stolen Valor Act ruled unconstituional on free speech grounds. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:32:41] - The court acknowledging in the opinion that it violates the commerce clause is I think signficant though. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:30:35] - daniel: Moreover, it's a tax but the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply for ... some strange reason. this is getting really bizzare. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:27:48] - Apparently the mandate violated commerce clause but that wasn't important because it being a tax made it ok. Crazy! -Daniel
[2012-06-28 10:24:55] - Wow I was assuming 6-3 when I heard it was upheld. Apparently 5-4 with Roberts being the one to switch. Not what I was expecting. -Daniel
[2012-06-28 10:22:24] - I suppose the silver lining in the decision is that it didn't further broaden the already broad commerce clause. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:19:54] - Even stranger was that pretty much all the other courts agreed (even those in favor of upholding) that the taxing power didn't apply. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:18:16] - mig: I think a strong desire to avoid political confrontation as a non-political body embroiled in an election cycle was a factor. Still, this is an ugly ruling; though I'll need to parse more. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 10:16:01] - xpovos: yeah i understand what that means. i just thought it was strange because it was understood by all to be the least likely of all the outcomes. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:15:13] - mig: As a tax means that there was a lack of standing. We might get future court battles. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 10:13:08] - Xpovos: Funny, I've heard both that it survived, and it was struck down. -Paul
[2012-06-28 10:12:42] - xpovos: the first thing I read is that it survives as a taxing power, not commerce clause .... which is strange. - mig
[2012-06-28 10:12:00] - Individual mandate survives. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 10:03:34] - aaron: are you not going to Daniel's bday games? ~g
[2012-06-28 09:42:00] - a: Didn't know the site was a Norquist product. Eh. As long as the bias is known and we can look at the facts, that's good enough for me. It's why I don't mind watching MSNBC, e.g. Stay away from the editorials, stick to the facts. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-28 09:33:24] - biased? this guy? no, not biased at all. ~a
[2012-06-28 09:30:32] - i'm also interested in how the stolen valor case will finally be decided. Looking further into the details of it (some of which are very weird), there could be some major free speech implications. - mig
[2012-06-28 09:21:11] - http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare-scotus-rule-a6996 I believe the source to be biased, but most of these are things I 'knew' about, so largely a collection of facts. Some of them are surprising all the same. Apropos for this morning, I think. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-27 13:17:06] - xpovos: yeah i was referring more toward post-operation complications. - mig
[2012-06-27 13:13:00] - mig: I'm not a doctor, but it seems the risks for something going wrong are about the same, if not less for being older. I'll agree there's a greater risk for post-operative issues in older patients. For one thing, babies are just naturally better at healing. Other obvious reasons apply too. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-27 13:07:46] - g: and I'll reiterate that I think it's insane anyone at that age would consider it. By all accounts it's pretty painful to do it at that age, and the risks for things going wrong is higher. - mig
[2012-06-27 13:00:37] - mig: Yea I was also thinking that a move like this which hits the Jewish community would be especially controversial coming from Germany... ~g
[2012-06-27 12:56:40] - g: I know it was in germany. It doesn't change my feeling that it will cause major outrage. Especially from the jewish community living there. - mig
[2012-06-27 12:50:38] - son = about 3 years old I think ~g
[2012-06-27 12:50:28] - also a friend of mine said that for medical reasons her son had to get re-circumsized... ~g
[2012-06-27 12:49:56] - additionally I have read about college age guys choosing to do it to fit in in the US... Obviously outside the US it isnt nearly as common. ~g
[2012-06-27 12:49:27] - mig: you realize its not in the US right? The link is about Germany, although they also have freedom of religion... ~g
[2012-06-27 11:07:10] - Well, I think the shitstorm might be minimized if they simply banned the procedure for non-newborns. The parents deciding to have a 4 year old go through the procedure seems really unwise to me (honestly I have no idea why anyone would willingly undergo the procedure if it wasn't done shortly after birth). - mig
[2012-06-27 09:54:20] - mig: woo! that's really amazing. yay bioware! i'll have to check it out, hopefully this weekend or something - aaron
[2012-06-27 09:47:22] - ME3 EC final verdict: If this was the original ending to start with, I think I would have absolutely loved it. - mig
[2012-06-26 19:00:52] - I'm against outlawing it for a variety of reasons, but I am very interested to see where the laws go. if it's a state or local law there's no federal issue except the potential violation of religious liberty. If it's a European law, it's fun to watch, but meaningless here. If the fed tries it (related, HHS vs. anti-contraceptive activists). ... -- Xpovos
[2012-06-26 18:59:17] - aaron: It has some (dubious perhaps, but not non-existent) medical backing as a legitimate procedure to reduce future problems. It's also a long-term cultural and religious tradition that when performed properly causes no medium or long-term harm--unlike other questionable cultural or religious practices. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-26 17:29:18] - xpovos: but yeah like you said, freedom of religion isn't without limit, i don't know. maybe it's rude to say it, but i feel like elective circumcision will be one of those "wtf" things 50 years from now - aaron
[2012-06-26 17:21:12] - xpovos: yeah i understand the logical argument that it indeed constitutes "minor bodily harm" but... yeah it's a very bold decision to say the least, and obviously encroaches over people's rights to practice religion - aaron
[2012-06-26 16:45:48] - That said... shitstorm is the right word. I anticipate much popcorn eating over the next couple of years. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-26 16:45:25] - mig: It's been attempted in a few localities here in the U.S. too, so it's not just a European thing. The fact is that some people insist on it as a religious thing, and others find it abhorent. Some religions in the past demanded human sacrifice; we wouldn't allow that. Freedom of and to practice religion is not without limit. -- Xpovos
[2012-06-26 16:44:53] - mig: Regarding the extended DLC, will you let me know if they bother explaining the very last cut scene for the perfect red ending, since I probably won't be downloading it? -Paul
[2012-06-26 16:19:21] - aaron: that's a bit crazy. if that court decision holds there is going to be a major shitstorm from pretty much all the major religious groups, especially if it's a total ban. Take the outrage over the contraception insurance mandate over here and mutliply it by 100. - mig
[2012-06-26 15:00:58] - aaron: wow thats interesting! I have read up on the battles about it some here, there are a lot of very strongly opinioned moms out there or future moms... ~g
[2012-06-26 14:00:07] - mig: Rockets traded for the 18th pick in the 1st round (from minnesota). We now have 3 first rounds picks this year plus like half our roster. The goal is two top ten picks and hope Orlando is willing to give up Dwight. Then Rox go after some quality free agent. Could be a solid team for next year. Here's hoping! -Daniel
[2012-06-26 13:49:24] - i suppose if it was needed for health reasons it's still OK, but you can't just have your kids circumsized for personal reasons - aaron
[2012-06-26 13:49:00] - http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/ if i'm reading this right, it sounds it's now illegal for parents to circumsize their children in germany? - aaron
[2012-06-26 13:41:21] - mig: i've heard good things about the green/red endings although i'm trying not to have anything spoiled! i'll check it out tonight - aaron
prev <-> next