Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:April:07 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/4/7-9 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:49676 Activity:nil 66%like:49695
4/7     this has it all.  Nazis, nazis, and nazis:
2008/4/7-12 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:49677 Activity:nil
4/7     Google searches spread spyware and hijack your PC to spread spam.
        \_ very poor understanding and description of the technical issues.
           Google isn't involved.  -tom
           \_ 'Google issued a statement saying it is helping affected
              websites fix the problem and is also developing new tools "to
              detect and block" malicious Web pages.'
              'The search engine trick - which has been focused on Google, ...'
              \_ Of course it's focused on Google, it's the search engine that
                 everyone uses.  All Google is doing is returning search
                 results.  -tom
                 \_ "All Windows is doing is supporting EXEs to run ......".
                    \_ ridiculous analogy.  -tom
                       \_ Actually very apt.
                          \_ only if a Windows EXE runs on other operating
        \_ That has to be the worst article I've ever read.
2008/4/7-12 [Finance/Banking, Reference/RealEstate] UID:49678 Activity:nil
4/6     Famed Venice eatery offering discount to 'poor' U.S. tourists
        'A sign posted outside the restaurant at the weekend reads:
        "Harry's Bar of Venice, in an effort to make the American victims of
        subprime loans happier, has decided to give them a special 20 percent
        discount on all items of the menu during the short term of their
2008/4/7-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:49679 Activity:nil
4/7     Global Warming Activist Pressures BBC to Significantly Alter Article
        Includes email back-and-forth with the author of the article.
           \_ You lock up your women because the Huns want them, or because
              they want the Huns?
2008/4/7-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49680 Activity:moderate
4/7     In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
        \_ If you add more people to the system and not more dollars this
           will happen. Universal care will end up costing taxpayers more
           money for a reduced (or the same) level of service - and don't
           give me this BS about how preventative care will save money. If you
           think that's true then make the Universal system include only
           preventative care.
           \_ Well, any solution that amounts to layering a bureaucracy on
              top of the existing system is dubious.
           \_ ...well, hell, if you don't believe preventative care will
              save money, how about you go ahead and stop receiving any of it
              and let us know how you're doing in about 10 years?
              \_ I think you missed his point. -!pp
                 \_ Not if his point was that preventative care will save
                 \_ Not if his point was that preventative care won't save
                    money or cut costs in a Universal healthcare system.
                    \_ Do you mean 'will not save?'
                       \_ Er, yes. Will fix soon and erase both of these
              \_ Preventative care won't save money if it then leads to
                 expensive procedures anyway. However, I'm all in favor
                 of free medical exams. Free clinics funded by the government
                 do this already. That's the extent of it, though.
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ Excellent: _some_ preventative medicine will save costs;
                    indiscriminate spending on unproven preventatives will
                    raise costs. That's important to know so's we can focus.
                    \_ Does early cancer screening save costs, improve
                       quality of life, or neither? I would argue that
                       overall it might improve quality of life, but it
                       doesn't lower costs. In fact, it adds to costs
                       because you have the cost of the screening plus the
                       costs of the treatment which is much the same either
                       way. On top of that, as the article points out,
                       you've extended a life so that you can have more
                       expensive screenings and ultimately (in many cases)
                       a recurrence anyway. Prevention works for conditions
                       which we have cures for like polio. It doesn't work
                       so well for cancer, heart disease, and such which
                       is probably where most of the medical $$$ go anyway.
                       \_ Have you included the value of saving the lives
                          of fully-productive adult members of society in
                          your calculation?  [Hint: No.]   -tom
                          \_ We are comparing prevention to no prevention +
                             treatment.  Are you claiming that the former
                             actually saves more lives (aside from the
                             known beneficial cases, e.g., vaccinations)?
                                -- ilyas
                          \_ The data shows that the cases where preventative
                             care actually does save productive lives are
                             very rare, except for those few known things like
                             vaccines or a single colonoscopy at a certain
                             \_ This depends entirely on what you consider
                                preventative: is abstinence education prevent-
                                ative? how about safe sex classes including
                                information on condoms? It makes sense, though,
                                that certain testable measures are much more
                                reliable than, say, handing out pamphlets.
           \_ No, because over 1/3 of the current costs of the medical system
              go to the "free market" beauracracy. All those countries that
              go to the "free market" bureaucracy. All those countries that
              have introduced universal health care have cut costs. I leave
              it as an exercise for the reader to discover how this could
              possibly have happened.
              \_ US government != European governments. As history proves
                 over and over again, US government = inefficient beauracracy
                 that cannot be trusted, and hence we have no choice but
                 to rely on the free market.
                 \_ You mean inefficient like the US Army or Marine Corp?
                    \_ Our military branches are efficient at torture.
              \_ They save costs because you die while waiting to get the
                 surgery you need because of rationing. The free market
                 can allocate resources much more effectively than some
                 bureaucrat can. If you really want to cut costs you should
                 eliminate insurance entirely. Right now people don't pay
                 attention to whether their doctor charges $1400 versus
                 $1200 for a procedure. If it's within the customary
                 averages insurance companies are going to pay it.
                 However, if that extra $200 comes out of their pocket you
                 can be sure people will pay more attention to costs. Our
                 current nightmare of employer-sponsored HMO plans is
                 basically already Universal Healthcare for the working
                 class. Sure, you can purchase individual coverage but how
                 many people eligible for an employer-sponsored plan do
                 that? (And if they do, not many employers refund their
                 portion of the premium!) For the elderly we already have
                 Medicare. Universal health care is a step in the wrong
                 direction. Eliminate virtual-mandatory participation in
                 these plans and watch both doctors and patients become
                 much happier as they split that 1/3 overhead that HMOs
                 currently enjoy. I pay $600/month for health insurance if
                 you count my portion and my employer's portion and I am
                 under 40 and healthy. That's your UHC tax right there.
                 Refund it back to me and let me decide how to obtain
                 medical care. Don't legislate away the only choice I have
                 (not to participate).
                 \_ Savings have to come from eliminating bureaucratic fat,
                    better experimental study design (so we actually know what
                    works), and more personalized medicine (relying on averages
                    works), and more RUSSIAN medicine (relying on averages
                    is expensive and kills people).  People who just want
                    Universal Healthcare <tm> basically aren't thinking about
                    the problem, they are just shouting a political meme.
                          -- ilyas
                 \_ You mean how the free market so efficiently allocated
                    resources during the dot-com bubble and the housing
                    run-up and collapse? Simply repeating your ideological
                    position does make it any more persuasive. Yes, the free
                    market rations health care according to ability to pay and
                    state run systems allocate them according to need. Guess
                    which one gets more bang for your buck? People die in both
                    systems waiting for health care.
                    \_ What exactly was wrong with the <DEAD><DEAD> bubble or
                       the housing run-up? It's how markets work. I'm sure
                       you far prefer the former Soviet Union which didn't
                       have those "problems". Bureaucrats cannot decide
                       "need" as well as dollars can. I argue that more
                       bang for the buck is the one that eliminates the
                       \_ The medicare and VA bureaucracy is much more
                          lightweight than the HMO/medical insurance one is.
                          I prefer what works, not what my ideology tells me
                          "must" work.
                          \_ I think you are the one with an ideological
                             problem here.
                 \_ Another issue is that people without insurance or ability
                    to pay still get care in emergency rooms. I don't know
                    what the $ numbers are for those cases. But most med
                    insurance is pretty obviously not very efficient. If med.
                    insurance should be mandatory it should have really
                    high deductibles. The biggest problem with insurance
                    is that it neuters market forces towards the medical
                    industry. With most insurance plans, all doctors and
                    all drugs cost similar amounts, barring some brand
                    name vs. generic category things. The consumer as you
                    say has little reason to look for medical "deals".
                    And insurance is expensive, and those who aren't insured
                    \_ Exactly. There is no reason to shop around. When
                       shopping for a new doctor how many people inquire
                       as to his rates? How many times do you pay your
                       bill at the doctor *after* services are rendered?
                       High deductibles and large co-pays make sense, but
                       I do not think that's what the UHC people have in
                       mind. Anyone who has spent time at a free clinic
                       (or knows someone who works at one) realizes what a
                       disaster that is for all involved. We should be
                       looking for a more streamlined solution, not a
                       bigger and more difficult to administer solution
                       with mandatory participation that will screw
                       middle-class taxpayers even more than they already
                       are while doing nothing to improve medical care.
                       \_ I agree with everything except for your conclusion.
                          UHC works very well in the places it has been tried:
                          the US Army, VA hospitals, Canada, England, etc. In
                          this country, we will probably have to have a two
                          tier system, more like England, rather than a
                          mandatory participation system, like Canada, though.
                          \_ Do you know anyone in the military? My gf's
                             mom was an Air Force and then Army nurse
                             (active duty) for 30 years and when she
                             retired from nursing she continued to work
                             closely with Tricare, NIH, VA, and State Dept
                             (believe it or not they are involved for things l
                             like sharing patient data between branches of
                             military) as a consultant. She was also a
                             hospital administrator for a military hospital
                             and her daughter (my gf's sister) is Air
                             Force reserves, former Army, and works
                             full-time for the VA right now. In addition,
                             my gf's dad and stepdad were both military
                             officers and my gf's sister's ex-husband is
                             active duty Army who spent time in Iraq. I
                             can say from my experiences at military
                             hospitals (visiting) and from the stories
                             I've heard that I do not want military
                             medicine or the VA as a model for anything.
                             \_ I grew up on military bases all my life. My
                                father was a hospital administrator for the
                                Navy (35 years service). While I would not
                                suggest that OCHAMPUS is by any means perfect,
                                it provided adequate health and dental coverage
                                for us throughout my childhood. I would
                                consider it a fine model for basic services.
                                \_ The key words you used were 'adequate'
                                   and 'basic services'. I would say
                                   'substandard'. I wouldn't go to a military
                                   hospital unless I had to. Lots of military
                                   people like it because it's free to them,
                                   but if I had a serious illness I would
                                   rather it be treated elsewhere. Also, ask
                                   your dad about the waste that goes on. For
                                   instance, military hospitals require the RNs
                                   to be trained in almost every discipline.
                                   Private hospitals only require nurses train
                                   in the field they work. I think that part
                                   of the reason that military healthcare
                                   seems cheap is that many costs are
                                   hidden. For instance, doctors' salaries
                                   are very low (which scares me in itself)
                                   but there are other benefits they receive
                                   which many think makes it worth their while.
                                   You will not be able to hire doctors
                                   privately at those salaries because the
                                   total package needs to be evaluated
                                   (e.g. retirement benefits, travel benefits,
                                   and so on). I am not sure if studies that
                                   examine the costs of military medicine
                                   account for these externalities. The
                                   military hospitals receive many benefits
                                   private hospitals do not just by virtue
                                   of being part of the military machine
                                   and yet the quality of care still sucks.
                                   \_ I was a medic for three years, so yes
                                      I am familiar with the military medical
                                      system. I think it is fine. The VA
                                      system is even better. We can easily
                                      hire doctors at the pay level that the
                                      military pays them: that is what MDs
                                      make everywhere in the world, except
                                      here. The AMA artificially keeps the
                                      supply low, to inflate salaries. I am
                                      surprised that such a purported free
                                      market cheerleader would not be aware
                                      of this fact.
                                      \_ Many people would dispute your
                                         assertion re: AMA. The AMA does
                                         not have this power. Less than
                                         20% of physicians are members and
                                         the AMA has no direct regulatory
                                         authority. Also, many countries keep
                                         MD salaries artificially low. Spain,
                                         for instance, recruits MDs from
                                         Eastern Europe and Third World
                                         nations at low salaries and
                                         holds them hostage with visas.
                                         It's not worthwile for Spaniards
                                         to even bother with medical
                                         school at those wages. The
                                         salaries of US doctors are high
                                         and it's one reason we have a
                                         high standard of care. Plus, US
                                         doctor salaries have actually eroded
                                         over the past 40 years.
                                         \_ The AMA controls licensing for
                                            medical schools, which is how
                                            they keep the number of doctors
                                            low. Show me proof that MD salaries
                                            have eroded over the last 40 years,
                                            because I don't believe it. Maybe
                                            for primary care docs, but almost
                                            assuredly not for specialists.
                                            Salaries are high due to monopoly
                                            pricing power, not quality.
                                            \_ The AMA does no such thing.
                                               The government controls
                                               this. Sure, the AMA is a lobby
                                               but they can't mandate anything.

                                               \_ Your articles provide support
                                                  for my claim that an
                                                  artificial shortage of MDs
                                                  has been created. And a four
                                                  year snapshot of MD salaries
                                                  from 10 years ago doesn't
                                                  prove much. Lately MD salaries
                                                  are going up:
                                                  \_ An artificial shortage of
                                                     MDs has been created by
                                                     \_ AMA of course.
                                                        Why is it so hard to
                                                        get a medical edu.?
                                                        Actually learning the
                                                        stuff isn't that hard,
                                                        but getting into the
                                                        school is. -!pp
                                                        \_ The articles dispute
                                                           that the AMA has any
                                                           such power.
                                                           such power. It is
                                                           the gov't that you
                                                           trust to admin UHC
                                                           which is the problem.
        "The ACGME's member organizations are the American Board of Medical
        Specialties, American Hospital Association, American Medical
        Association, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the
        Council of Medical Specialty Societies. Member organizations each
        appoint four members to the Board of Directors, which also includes
        two resident members, three public directors, the chair of the Council
        of Review Committee Chairs and a non-voting federal representative."
        The AMA is one of the people on the board of the organization that
        certifies medical schools, but is not the only member.
        \- Might be of interest: WSJ article on non-profit hospital profits:
        \_ Nice to know, but in the end it is the government (through Medicare)
        \_ Nice to know, but in the end is it the government (through Medicare)
           that funds residents. In theory, we don't need any more accredited
           programs to churn out more doctors. We just need more students in
           the existing programs.
           \_ In other words, the AMA (amongst others) controls licensing for
              medical schools, which is what I said. The AMA also agressively
              lobbies the government to underfund medical education, but that
              is a bit more complicated as there are other players. But for
              generations, the AMA has done everything in its power to keep
              the number of doctors artificially low. Nice to see that some
              people are waking up to the fact that this might not be a good
              idea afterall.
              \_ This is what you said:
                 "The AMA controls licensing for medical schools"
                 (This statement is not really true as the AMA does not
                 have sole, or even majority, control. They have input.)
                 "which is how they keep the number of doctors low."
                 (This statement is not really true either since, as I
                 pointed out, the number of residents is largely
                 determined by the government.)
                 The AMA is a lobby out to protect the interests of
                 doctors. Wow, what a shocker. Next you will tell me that
                 UAW is trying to protect American autoworker jobs. However,
                 the AMA always gets blame for artificially limiting the
                 number of doctors and the reality is that they don't have
                 that capability. They have the desire, but let's not
                 overstate their authority. The biggest party at fault is the
                 government - the same government that people want to run
                 Universal Health Care.
                 \_ You said "the government controls this" which is entirely
                    false. "The government" is you and me, put the blame
                    where it belongs.
                    \_ You can increase funding for medical residents? You
                       should get on that.
2008/4/7-12 [Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:49681 Activity:nil
4/7     What does this mean and how do I decode it?
        Na "Napvrag" Ncevy Sbby'f cenax ba bhe PRB?
        \_ Don't they teach rot 13 in schools these days?
        \_ copy-n-paste it into: cat | rot13
        \_ 'An "Ancient" April Fool's prank on our CEO?'
        \_ Hope I'm not breakign the DMCA here -- rot13 in tr:
        \_ Hope I'm not breaking the DMCA here -- rot13 in tr:
             tr a-zA-Z n-za-mN-ZA-M
2008/4/7-12 [Uncategorized] UID:49682 Activity:nil
4/7     In the USCIS naturalization test, how many of the 100 questions can I
        answer wrong, yet still pass the test?  Thanks.
2008/4/7-8 [Recreation/Dating] UID:49683 Activity:insanely high
4/7     Why does everyone have a girlfriend with enormous breasts
        except me?  Goddammit.
         \_ The answer you seek lies with the question you ask.  Ponder and
            enormous wisdom shall be yours.
         \_ You date Asian chicks?
         \_ the latest south park episode "major boobage" is just for you
         \_ My girlfriend is only very moderately endowed as well.  Just
            be glad you have a girlfriend at all.
         \_ What is the sound of one breast wiggling?
         \_ My ex-gf had 38D and my wife has 32A.  I prefer 32D.
         \_ @gf[0] = 34B
            @gf[1] = 36A
            @gf[2] = 36C
            @gf[3] = 36DD
            @gf[4] = 32A
            @gf[5] = 34DDD.  holy shiva they were huge.  we messed around
            a bit a few years ago after she got out of jail, somehow she
             a few years ago after she got out of jail, she
             had shrunk to a decent B.
            @gf[6] = 34C
            @gf[7] = 30B
            @gf[8] = 36A. 6' tall.  height made up for it.
            @gf[9] = 34B.  fundy christian.
            @gf[10]= 32B.  made up for it in bed.
            @gf[11]= 34D.  6'1". PERFECT.
            @gf[12]= 34AA.
            @gf[-1]= 32A. probably going to marry this one. motd boob god
                     hates me.
                     \_ I think a repair for this would only cost around
                        $5k?  Not sure of the going rate.
            \_ Re: @gf[5], I envy you!
         \_ current(list) = 34A.  lately she complains that shes getting
            fat and that its all going to her boobs.  im going to buy
            her tubs of ice cream.
            \_ If she can figure out a way to get that to happen for everybody,
               she'll be rich.
         \_ I'm glad we don't have motd butt guy.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:April:07 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>