Stalin's Russia was a one-party state.
Mao's China was a one-party state.
Mussolini's Italy was a one-party state.
Hitler's Germany was a one-party state.
DPRK is a one-party state.

It's not centralization that is the issue, here.

I read the article but still unsure of the details or if it really applies to me. I get surprised all the time from dentist and optometrist (not my GP which I don't go to very often) because they can't (or won't) tell me how much my out of pocket costs are. It's more "we'll bill insurance and you pay the rest BS".

That's what I want to get fixed. A firm, upfront out of pocket cost before I engage in their services. What other industry do we "buy" something but not know a "cost" upfront or at least a good faith estimate. Give me single payer (+ option for private insurance).

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/polit...ule/index.html

Yup, let's make it happen. Also good to hear we are taking care of the Afghans that helped us (expediting visas etc.).

They will be well cared for

I was in the hospital multiple times almost four years ago. I still get bills from doctors I never saw in the hospital, and some of them for thousands of dollars. It is ridiculous. Anyone I see at a hospital should be payed by the hospital. It is even worse when a hospital is in-coverage for your insurance, but the providers are not. It is criminal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kbtX6-XDg0

Yesterday, I had a diagnostic procedure that insurance does not cover. BUT it wasn't necessary--it was one of those "good to know" type tests. So it was priced like a normal consumer product b/c I could walk away if it was too expensive. It wasn't like insulin which people need to live, so they can charge $10,000 a vial for it. And the price wasn't veiled behind 10 layers of insurance.

I chose the place I went to because they were having a sale on the procedure.

It cost $99.

Literally the same thing. A scan to get my calcium score in my heart. I had to lay on the table in an imaging machine. It was $99. Had it been a required procedure through insurance would likely have been hundreds if not thousands.

That was my exact test :-)

My wife scheduled a well check to get her regular scrips renewed, got blood work done, etc....typically well checks are covered expenses. We got a bill for the copay. When she called to complain and ask why, it's because, she was told, that the doctor prescribed her 'new' medication and therefore it counts as a sick visit. This new medication was a script for vitamins. She called it out as bs, and the answer was, 'this is just how it is.' So, if you go see a doctor and you're well, IF they find something they don't like it's a sick visit. Coincidentally, if she had waited until after the appointment to do her blood work (she did hers so it was done and could be reviewed during the visit) the doctor could have just sent out a script after reviewing it and there's no way she would have been charged for that.

AP: Snake Oil Heart Calcium Tests Dupe Countless Victims With Nonsense $99 "Sale Price"

I'm dreading the bill for my trip to the ER the other night. Turned out to be kidney stones and not the appendix the urgent care thought, but I'm sure the cost of a CT scan and some bloodwork (that took 5 hours of waiting) will be astronomical. I have decent insurance, but there are like 5 different deductibles (in-network, out-network, integrated, individual vs. family, etc) and they only cover once the deductible is hit.

My daughter had scheduled surgery a couple years ago. In advance, we picked an in-network hospital and asked how much it would cost. We were told that there is no way to know in advance. The day of the procedure, we were in the billing office. They said that our portion would be $700 and "the anesthesiologist will bill separately". I was under the impression that the $700 was the vast majority of my responsibility. Weeks later we got a bill for $700 and another for $7,000. The anesthesiologist was out of network but we had zero control over who walked into that room.

It is a common occurrence. It is immoral and should be criminal.

I was wondering why my left arm is sore 4 days later...

Had the exact same thing a few months ago. I was also dreading the bill but it turns out my insurance is pretty solid as all I was charged was a $100 ER visit co-pay. With the CT scan and all the other stuff they did to me, I racked up a $10,000 bill.

If I had the same insurance when I self-insured while farming, I'd be looking at $5000 out of pocket.

Ironically, I work at the hospital where I was treated and is the only way to go in-network. You would think that would help, but Aetna gotta profit yo.

Tbf, heart calcium test is something my cardiologist said was useful. Though everywhere around here requires a doctor order (because I guess it is radiation).

Oh and Pilotman, that's called health care fraud. It's probably too late but I would have refused to pay and tell them you'd complain to the US Department of Labor (because I guess your wife isn't the only one they did this to, it may be something of interest to our Benefit Advisors). Actually you probably can still call to complain - https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/ab...gional-offices

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

SCOTUS refuses to hear appeal from a florist who was fined for refusing to make an arrangement for a same sex wedding. Interestingly, it was Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas who dissented. This means Barrett (along with Kavanaugh and Roberts) voted against the florist. Promising sign for future of LGBT rights.

Very surprised to see Barrett wasn't one of the dissenters.

It is going to depend on how your Doctor coded the claim, meaning the primary DX. If it is a well visit the primary DX code should reflect this, as well as the CPT for the consult. Check with your doctor on that and if they coded it as a well visit submit an OIG complaint. It the doctor coded it as a sick visit they can submit a corrected claim.

I saw a twitter feed on the last day of this term speculating that the attorneys in this case are terrible and the conservatives may be waiting for a stronger case.

Hacking Attack Likely Hit Thousands of New Targets

Biden really needs to crack down on this crap and not just hand Putin a list of what is ok and not ok to attack.

She hasn't exactly turned out to be the judicial torpedo that many liberals feared. She also voted with the 7-2 majority in the recent decision to reverse court rulings in Texas and other Republican-led states that struck down the Affordable Health Care Act's individual mandate provision.

It's kind of funny to go back and listen to Chuck Schumer's dramatic hyperbole during her confirmation hearing:

The Roberts Court is willing to occasionally throw a bone on cultural issues, because Democrats obsess about them and neglect voting rights (until very recently) and issues that favor the corporates and rich that always go against them.

It's ok, trump said it was a fat guy in his mom's basement. There's no reason to fear a fat guy loser. Putin definitely had nothing to do with it.

I guess Biden didn't hit his goal but still pretty good considering where we were in Jan.

The "lack of access" isn't near as relevant now, its pretty clear its lack of want to and trust.

Looking for updates to infrastructure but not much has happened since the bipartisanship agreement from a week ago. I assume the "Jobs" and "Family" plan comes next but predict it'll be severely diluted.

who cares if they hit Target? I don't shop there anyway.

Don't agree with this take at all. The Dems have been focusing on voting rights for a long time. Look at all the debates as voter ID laws sprung up. And it's not like the Dems are supporting pro-gay, anti-voting rights justices, so what exactly did SCOTUS accomplish with this supposed vote trading?

Also, Roberts himself was a pretty forceful dissenter on Obergefell. The reason LGBT rights did well for so long is because of Kennedy, a conservative leaning justice who consistently ruled in favor of LGBT rights.

What is a one-party state if not an example of highly centralized power?


Huh? I think there's a word missing here that would help me understand what you are saying, but one of points specifically was that centralized authority is better than localized authority. Talking about ways in which centralized authority aka the other side can be a problem is as valid and germane as anything could be, unless I'm missing something.

Regarding the 'go spend more time in the south comment', I invite you to cite one single study/poll/etc. that indicates the type of proposals I mentioned have significant support.

:nono:

Within 20 minutes of the US's departure on Friday night the electricity was shut down and the base was plunged into darkness, the AP reported - a signal to looters who smashed through barriers and ransacked the abandoned buildings.

Twenty. Minutes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57682290

https://news.gallup.com/poll/193595/...ent-power.aspx

We're not talking about the disillusionment of the government, only the 'desire to make is small enough to drown it in a bathtub' arguments. I have never argued that a all powerful, central government should eliminate the states either, which is exactly what you're suggesting I have said, nor am I arguing the opposite. In fact, when the central government does not have the authority, the political power, or the funding is ceases to be effective. It can still exist, as it does in Mexico, but it loses out to warlords who effectively hold hostage the local and state governments. If you can't see the direction that some states are taking, and some of the more extremist factions within those states are having you're just being willingly ignorant.

A neighbor went and had the same test done. I think about doing it (no history of heart disease in my family, but I am ~25 lbs overweight), but am truthfully a bit nervous to find out the results...

White House Issues Threat to Russia Over Hacking

Hopefully there's a concrete plan being made and not just another warning letter of what you can and can not attack.

That's a bullshit way to describe what happened. The list was a way to communicate what things would be thought of as critical and could lead to war. Not everything can be equally important, we aren't going to war if the 7-11 slushie machines are hacked.

Why should any attack be tolerated? There's also the fact that hackers have attacked industries on the "off-limit" list.

Don't tell that to my child.

We aren't tolerating anything. We did the same thing during the cold war, letting the Soviets know what things would lead to a war is intended to make it less likely to end up in a war. Now if the current Russian government wants to keep pushing, we'll respond bit by bit and hopefully, it doesn't get out of control.

Personally, I think we need to be more aggressive pushing back, but not everything is worthy of an all-out assault that may lead to war.

That is not remotely close to what I was referring to. It's difficult for me to believe that you really think it is. There is a massive, massive gap here that for whatever reason it seems you are ignoring. On the one hand, we have a gallup question about general theory of government state vs. federal power. On the other hand we have how you yourself described the issue:


This describes a situation where the federal government has no power at all, and is what I have been repeatedly referring to. I've offered specific example proposals on both sides, and have heard only generalities. I'm not sure how to break through this wall and make the discussion more productive, but when you say you aren't being absolutist and then tell me I'm being willfully ignorant and your initial statements railed against 'states have all the rights and authority' - I didn't put the word all in there, it's in the original post - I'm left wondering where the line is you are trying to draw here. My point was and is that there are specific areas where Americans consistently want the federal government to retain power and/or increase it. Just because some don't want them in charge of some areas does not mean there is a significant or effective movement to remove federal authority to the degree that it is no longer in charge of those key areas. That point has gone unaddressed so far as I can tell in favor of (paraphrasing, but accurately) 'those who want more state power want the Mexico system'. How am I supposed to react to that kind of statement without considering it to be absolutist?

Regarding ignorance, one metric is the amount of the economy the fed consumes. While defense spending has proportionally declined, the overall chunk - even in non-pandemic times - has had a flat trend for 35 years. At no point, up to and including the present, in modern American history has it significantly declined without jumping back up within about a decade. So I can only ask, where are the specific proposals that are being put into place to take control of taxation away from the federal government? To take control of the military away? To give state governors/legislatures greater power than the president/Congress? What states are ripping up Treasury-issued currency and replacing it with their own, or successfully declaring that they aren't going to abide by federal mandates and will supercede with their own version of the EPA, OSHA, their own independent intelligence agency, whatever? We aren't in 'all or nothing' territory here, we're in 'what way at all are states acting like this?'

What's the alternative? What specific actions should we take in the event of the proverbial 'minor' cyberattack?

Geezus Brian...if you can't find the conversation I am trying to have while muddying up the whole thing with the one you want to have, that's on you.

After the Taliban takes back the country in a few months, the biggest losers will be the Afghan women. Many have risen to prominent positions in society and leadership. Young Afghan women have prospered with the opportunities afforded by a good education. Soon, they'll go back to being minimized, brutalized and raped.

What do you consider a 'minor cyberattack'?

But let's face it. Over a thousand companies and government agencies have been attacked with ransomware and that number is rapidly growing. This is costing companies billions of dollars.

We should be embargoing any country that is tolerating ransomware users and sanctioning their officials. We should be getting extradition treaties.

Heck we're putting treaty together that would set a minimum tax on corporations. Surely we could put one together to go after ransomware attackers?

In the case of Russia, they either wouldn't sign the treaty or if they did sign it they wouldn't honor it. Heck they aren't even admitting what they're doing now, with no treaty. If we embargo every country that does that, the damage to our economy, never mind the world's economy, will be far worse then the impact of the current problem.

Treaties only work in a situation where all sides own up to what their actual actions are.

Probably should have made the Afghan army out of women, they'd actually have something to fight for and might not cheerily give up their arms.

Dems wanted to help pay for infrastructure with new taxes. GOP said no way. OK. That's compromise. So they settled on the extraordinarily modest proposal of simply making it easier to collect taxes that are currently being avoided. No new taxes. Just make it harder for criminals to steal from the government.

And, of course, "conservatives" are now rallying against that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...conservatives/

So, for those keeping score at home, conservatives are now advocating for bigger deficits and defunding law enforcement.

But no one keeps score anymore, so LOL nothing matters.

Poor cybersecurity is what is costing them billions of dollars. These "hacks" are not as sophisticated as they are made out to be. Often times they are incredibly dumb mistakes by companies who have thoroughly neglected spending in cybersecurity.

It's a weird spot when the companies that have done nothing but push for no government regulation want the government to bail them out for their poor decisions.

Blame the victim right?

There are situations where victims did nothing to bring on their victimhood. Neglecting basic cybersecurity is not one of those situations.