This happened about a block up the street from my office. The local radio stations were buzzing about it. However I did not see it in person.
EDIT: And… radio prank.
The whole thing is a moving target. Provisions are constantly being added, removed (not enough removal though) and amended… to the handful of different and all lengthy bills. But even what is and isn’t can lead to more confusion. For example, what about illegal aliens? They’re included in the 47 million uninsured that we’re supposed to be helping, so since we’re supposed to be helping everyone in that group (and I think the term “universal” gets floated around from time to time) you would think that we would help everyone in the group. Right?
The answer seems to be no. But yes.
While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway.
I believe this type of thing is the core of the cost “savings”: low overhead. The government won’t look for fraud. And it will then conclude that since it doesn’t see any fraud, that there isn’t any fraud and that the system is just peachy. Just like Medicare:
[Rep. Mike Holt] answered a question about Medicare fraud by saying that it really doesn’t exist because “people are required to report Medicare fraud” and since “very little fraud is reported” the problem is a “very small percentage.” I guess since very few people turn themselves in to the police for using their cell phones or texting while driving that indicates that those things don’t go on, either. Head, sand.
Earlier in the week I was listening to a budget priorities conference call. The budget in question wasn’t that of my company, rather it was for the organization we work with. The people for this organization are prone to doing silly and non-transparent things. This week, for this presentation, they compiled a list of budget priorities. However, they failed to include one item that is relatively big and expensive that has been a major topic of at least a dozen meetings throughout the course of the year. Basically, there was no good reason to leave this item off the list.
Good reason or not, these people left it off the list. And then they tried to defend their indefensible position. Long story short, I cracked up laughing at one of the defenses they offered. It turns out that my microphone wasn’t muted like I thought it was. So, the other people kinda noticed. I’m not sure if anyone knew that it was me that was laughing. Nonetheless, I don’t feel too bad because these people really deserved to be mocked in this situation.
It’s restaurant week here in the DC area. One of my co-workers made reservations at the new restaurant nearby, Chef Geoff’s Tyson’s to take advantage of the deals available during restaurant week. For $21 each person got an appetizer of their choice, entree of their choice, and dessert of their choice. It was $30, $40, or even more than $50 worth of food for a single fixed price. It was a lowlight for me because I decided to order things that I generally don’t order; in this regard I’ve been on a “trying new things kick” for a year or so. My appetizer was a scallop & shrimp ceviche. Had I realized what a ceviche was, I wouldn’t have ordered it. It was still ok, but nothing great, IMO. For my main course I went simple and ordered a lobster roll. Having never had a lobster roll before, I’m not sure if this was a good representation or bad. I do know that I didn’t enjoy it that much. To me, it was nothing more than blandness on a half-stale roll. My mocha-cheesecake dessert was good, but less like cheesecake than I had expected.
So it was a lowlight because I had high expectations. In the end. I realized that I would have much more enjoyed a $4 lunch from McDonald’s.
It has often seemed to me that the wait times in checkout lines at the supermarket in Northern Virginia were unusually and unnecessarily long. Now comes some confirmation on that first part:
The linked article goes on about the details of wait times. Unfortunately they spent only 1 paragraph on what I consider to be the problem. That being slow ass cashiers whose only interest seems to be serving as few customers as possible. Moreover, that paragraph explains why what I see as a problem is actually considered to be a feature of the system.
Most supermarket operators are like the southern company Publix Super Markets Inc., which maintains a separate line for each register. “Many will wait in a different line just to be served by their preferred cashier,” says a Publix spokeswoman. At one of the stores in the Sacramento study, shoppers were more satisfied with slower cashiers, suggesting that they enjoyed the interactions.
Dear readers,
I’m searching for some information, but I can only vaguely describe it. If you can help me out, I would be most appreciative.
Many of you have probably heard of studies that examine the IQ difference between the genders. The studies found that the mean is about the same and that the distribution is different meaning that men are more likely than women to be super-geniuses and also more likely to be super-idiots. Some people used this as evidence that men and women are inherently different and that’s just how the world is.
Still with me? If so, read on.
I could swear, that within the last year or two, I read a news article about researchers who tried to do the same type of research that showed the difference in variance between the genders. The difference though was that they didn’t limit themselves to an American dataset. Instead they studied data from around the world. They found that the differences didn’t exist in some places. The study undermined the idea that there are inherent differences, and that instead social factors are likely to be key drivers.
So, I’m looking for information about just what the latter study was. I can’t find anything about it. Anyone? Anyone?
