StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 01:12 PM) Contradictory post is contradictory. "There is no complaint...the complaint is..." Didn't the democrats do exactly this in IL and win a few seats by doing so? Democrats probably gained some seats in IL and a couple of other states, but Republicans dominated nationwide in 2010, which coincided with a census-driven redistricting. Democrats have been pointing to this post-election to posit that the only reason the GOP retains control of the House is because of gerrymandering. Political scientists are taking a look at that claim to see if it stands up. What seems to be falling out is that beyond the typical gerrymandering benefits, Republicans got an abnormal boost in the last election. This isn't a complaint but an analysis of the data; it is what it is. You can tie various policy complaints into that e.g. redistricting reform, but that's not what they're investigating. edit: the original post I linked to from the Monkey Cage asserted that Republicans benefited much more from the Incumbency Effect than anything.

The Monkey Cage is a blog of several political scientists. It's not a partisan website making a complaint. In fact, my initial post was using one of their articles to rebut the claim that Democrats are making re: more Democrats received votes for the House, only reason they don't control is gerrymandering. They're just examining the data. It's no more partisan or a "complaint" than when Nate Silver breaks down some poll or another.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) The problem is the feds have instituted just as bad of policies over the years. Should we talk about the 3/5 rule here? Why should something be OK for everyone, just because the federal government decides that it is? I think an unsaid assumption here is that the federal government somehow always makes the best decisions for the masses... that just isn't true. I retain my right to endorse picksy-choosey federalism the same as everyone else! The fed's drug policies are terrible and dumb and I'm glad that Colorado and Washington passed their laws. I'm glad that marriage equality is becoming accepted in more and more states, though I think it should have never been an issue due to equal protection. But on the other hand, it's always really, really easy to point to the Jim Crow south.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 12:39 PM) Correct. Possibly. There's training costs and learning curves associated with bringing in an entirely new staff. edit: I'm sure it would be under a new contract that may be close to what they just rejected, but that's still 18,000 people trained to do exactly what you're looking to hire people to do, who know the equipment and the processes inside and out. edit2: from comments elsewhere:

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 11:44 AM) very unlikely. http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/16/news/compa...ostess-closing/ Yeah I'm not sure that the words of the guy looking for labor concessions in a negotiation are 100% reliable.

For now, until someone buys them up and re-opens them and needs to find a skilled labor force to staff them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) There's been some talk on the left about how Republicans only held onto the House because of 2010 gerrymandering. Political scientists at The Monkey Cage and Sam Wang take a look Monkey Cage: Sam Wang makes the case for both a strong incumbency effect but also a significant and historically abnormal gerrymandering benefit: More on this: http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/11/15/n...t-the-congress/

I was watching this last week and I was amazed at how similar the arguments are 80 years later.

Monopoly Is Theft Monopoly's origin story often attributes a Depression-era man, but it was really invented by a woman a few decades earlier to teach Georgian economics/philosophy which holds that no person can claim ownership of land. The goal of the game is to become a rent-seeking monopolist, extracting resources from others simply by virtue of claiming ownership of land.

I'm tentatively benching Brandon Marshall in favor of Denarius Moore, assuming that Cutler will be out.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) And again, that concept can be applied in millions of cases. Chicago needs to pass a law that protects north side white sox fans from being discriminated against in north side bars. They need to pass a law protecting smokers from being discriminated against in every business establishment in the city, and on and on. Why is it so bad that local governments/communities get to decide who gets that protection and who doesn't? It is bad because it often ends with minority groups having their rights violated or denied, often violently. Why is it so good that local governments should be able to violate someone's civil rights?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) My response didn't go through last night for some reason. In part, yes I do. I see the historical need for some of those classes (gender and race/ethnicity specifically) and think the rest are rather arbitrary (national origin, religion and sexual orientation in some states). If you're going to have homosexuals as a protected class, might as well add the obese, the ugly and day walkers/gingers. I mean, at what point does it end? Yes, there's a history (and ongoing) discrimination of homosexuals, but the same crap has happened to a lot of groups of people over the years. It ends when class-based discrimination ends. As you admit, there's a long history of discrimination against and oppression of homosexuals. Why on earth shouldn't they be legally protected against this discrimination and violation of their civil rights? What possible social benefit does delegating civil rights to the states bring, especially in light of what this has historically meant?

They'll sell the brands and factories off, the products will still be around.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) I'd watch that one. Also, speaking of dead cats, Hostess is requesting liquidation and shutdown. Too bad they couldn't make it a little longer, they would have made assloads of money in Colorado and Washington. This was from back in September: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09...-brian-driscoll

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) That clip was posted along with my own comments highlighting the overpricing. I wasn't intending to say this is exactly how we should do things across the board, my intention was made clear by what I said before the video. You ignored that, and it was pretty important to NOT ignore that. I chose to comment on the thing I was critical of (Reason's proposed solution) instead of the thing I wasn't (health care services can be severely over-priced).

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) The fact is, even if you wanted to "price shop", you couldn't do it. It's general practice in that industry to not post prices until after the procedure was completed. Right, and pricing-based-on-your-particular-insurance-sub-plan complicates things quite a bit as well. Which is why the model that works for out-patient non-critical surgery centers might not be a panacea for the entire health care industry. This is from the surgery center's own website: Their model is helpful if you're in those situations. It's not if you have a plan like the majority of insured Americans do.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) The point wasn't to advocate that everyone pay for their own health care, as SS tried to imply. The point was to highlight that doctors/hospitals, with the enabler that the insurance companies have become, are jacking up costs an amount that can only be considered "insane". I understand having a profit margin...but selling a drug for 600$ that you paid 1.50$ for is just astounding. It's not like we're talking about a drug the pharmaceutical company is charging hundreds of dollars for that's still under patent protection, but generic drugs that cost hospitals pennies, and they're turning around and charging their patients up charges of 50,000%, and getting away with it. It's the same reason why, when my wife was in the hospital having our first baby, that multiple line items of : Doctor visit : 300$, which constituted a nurse poking her head in the room and asking if she was feeling ok is something they get away with doing. Yes, this happened. Yes, the charges were 300$+ per time she was asked, "are you feeling ok", because apparently, in that world, that's what constitutes a "doctor visit". It's patently absurd. Don't defend it. I'm not defending overpricing. I'm criticizing Reason's solution: price-information-driven choices. As long as my insurance company is bearing the burden above my deductible or co-pay, I have no real incentive to price-shop my medical procedures.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 10:14 AM) Wow. Wasn't really the point, at all. If we're relying on insurance, then there's no incentive for us to give a s*** about prices because we're not paying them (at least directly). For this sort of consumer-pricing model to work, you need to have unique situations like what was described in the video: someone who will simply foot the bill directly (or their company will do it for them). As long as Blue Cross Blue Shield (or Medicare) continues to pay for my procedure beyond my $500 deductible, I don't have incentive to price-shop my care. Nor is it always practical or possible to price-shop some of the most expensive care. It's pretty common to see people in libertarian circles arguing against how we currently use health insurance, anyway. The general argument would be that we should be paying for all but catastrophic costs out-of-pocket, analogous to car insurance paying for crashes but not oil changes. But as long as every medical procedure and prescription cost continues to be obscured from the consumer by insurance, we don't have the incentive. I pay $30/month for my medication regardless of whether I take the name-brand or the generic. And, even when consumers are paying for it, there's still huge name-brand power. Advil still dominates the ibuprofen market despite there being numerous generics that are significantly cheaper. Health has its own unique incentives of everyone always wanting the absolute best care because, hey, it's your body and your life. I might be okay with bargain-shopping at Kohls for sweaters instead of paying $200 at Nordstrum, but I probably wouldn't carry my frugality over to my choice of heart surgeon.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) I've already seen TCV and Foo Fighters live, so I might as well see QOTSA, right? I saw them at the Riv three or four years ago, it was a fantastic show.

"As Obamacare drives out whats left of markets in medicine [...]" It also seems odd to have nurses in charge of building maintenance and HR. Does double-tasking a nurse really prove more efficient in the long-run? These surgery centers are great for certain types of patients, but they don't serve the same clientele as full-service hospitals, nor do they generally have the ability to handle a major event during surgery (such as you going into cardiac arrest). Reason.tv seems to be arguing against the very concept of insurance risk pools in that video, instead advocating that we each foot our own bill every time.

Mythbusters should test how much a cat carcass actually bounces.

Increasing polarization of the Senate: Both sides have gotten more polarized, but moderate Republicans have pretty much disappeared.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 16, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) Like it or not, propelling your team to the playoffs has always been a key component of the MVP award. It is not the best offensive player, or the highest WAR award. The unmeasurables have always been a large part of the award. Well for a long time a lot of the stuff was unmeasurable (immeasurable?), but now we can quantify it.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Nov 15, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) I love my Kindle paperwhite. I'd much rather read on a e-reader than a tablet. I've still got the original nook, but that's my opinion as well. Color touch-screen e-ink would be awesome if they can figure it out, but until then I'd rather have the dedicated reader.

I only understood the first sentence of that post. I wouldn't be shocked if ultimately that's what they do.