Monday Highlights

Hello. Cold out there it seems. Mr Gore apparently not in touch (this weather may be cold but it only “extreme” if you are susceptible to confirmation bias … in which case you think the climate is radically changing because of normal weather patterns like el Nino (Nina?) moving the jetstream). Links?

  1. Place and income mobility. At a glance, you’re best of in the Mid-west and West.
  2. Chaos and electric demand.
  3. Another question for the pseudo-intellectual Gore.
  4. Repealing the 14th in practice.
  5. Twitter as precis practice.
  6. Finding love.
  7. Or finding something akin to love in the wrong places.
  8. Energy balance and the sloth.
  9. Always beware of the “I can’t imagine” argument, it’s a not-well-known rhetorical/logical fallacy.
  10. Cinema.
  11. Mr Huckabee was he recently abused for making sense?
  12. Return query, replace “all women” with “All men” or “all fans of Charles Dickens” “all prefer pink to purple” (to which you’d should object). If the criteria isn’t germane to the topic using it is a criteria is bigotry or race/sex/whatever-criteria -ism.
  13. Language does not commute (order matters).
  14. Uranium enrichment numbers.

17 responses to “Monday Highlights

  1. 2.Chaos and electric demand.

    Exercise is probably the best way to get stronger and resist injury….even though exercise itself carries a risk of injury. More and more ‘smart appliances’ are coming into the market and ‘smart meters’ make sense for the consumer who can use them to balance out their electrical demand. Smart meters also help with the problem of having to bring power sources online quickly by essentially charging ‘congestion pricing’ to those who want to demand power during peak times. This is already happening, for example I’ve spoken to people whose auto paint shops run their machines overnight when electric rates are cheaper.

    Hackers? Yes they will come too but the system has to adapt to them.

    This also addresses the problem of unpredictable wind/solar energy. First off they aren’t so unpredictable. Solar esp. follows the rough demand for electricity very well and wind can be predicted from this new technology we call ‘weather reports’. The risks open up additional opportunities. For example a smarter grid can shuttle surplus power to shortage areas more intelligently just as the internet moves traffic around to avoid congested servers and tap underutilized ones. Differential pricing also makes battery technology more lucrative since you can profit by banking power during lulls and supplying them during peak demand.

  2. 11.Mr Huckabee was he recently abused for making sense?

    His comments are actually pretty disgusting. No woman is ‘provided’ birth control. Women go to their doctor, discuss what they want, get a script, choose whether ot fill it or not. How exactly is that women being ‘helpless to their libidos’.

    But while we are on this topic, notice what is never talked about, viagra. A 50 yr old man goes to the doctor, says he wants to get it up more, doc writes him a script and he goes and fills it. The doctors visit is covered by insurance, so is the script (granted it might not be 100% covered but it probably will be generously covered). No one discusses whether the man can control his libido. No employer demands a right to be told who exactly he is having sex with because they morally disapprove of extra-marital or gay sex. Whatever he wants to do, he is assumed to be morally mature and responsible for his own decisions. Women, though, are ‘helpless’ here against their insane sexual urges.

    So yes it’s a GOP war on woman, but it is just a very impotent war.

  3. Suggested reading to contrast with Huckabee
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_s_case_against_contraception_is_reproductive_choice_too_dangerous.html

    On the cultural front liberal intellectuals have surpassed the right. Or probably it would be more accurate to say the intellectual decay on the right has now decreased their ability to speak intelligently about even purely cultural/philosophical issues when compared to their liberal counterparts.

  4. Boonton,

    Women go to their doctor, discuss what they want, get a script, choose whether ot fill it or not. How exactly is that women being ‘helpless to their libidos’.

    Yah, for the liberals who haven’t heard of condoms.

    But while we are on this topic, notice what is never talked about, viagra. A 50 yr old man goes to the doctor, says he wants to get it up more, doc writes him a script and he goes and fills it. The doctors visit is covered by insurance, so is the script (granted it might not be 100% covered but it probably will be generously covered).

    And if an employer decides not to cover viagra, who’d have a problem with that? Not me.

  5. How exactly would one ‘not cover viagra’? Since any GP can prescribe it how would an employer go about regulating doctors visits so if the conversation turns to ED the doctor has to stop billing insurance and charge the patient directly?

  6. Boonton,

    How exactly would one ‘not cover viagra’?

    How does one not cover contraception? Since any GP can prescribe it how would an employer go about regulating doctors visits so if the conversation turns to ED contraception …. Apparently the same way. But you knew that. Try again.

  7. I’m not seeing how your position is sensible. If it’s immoral to cover either contraceptives or viagra, then how can it be moral to cover the doctors’ visit that produces the script for either?

    This still leaves women in a bad position since birth control pills are often prescribed for non-contraceptive reasons.

    Yah, for the liberals who haven’t heard of condoms.

    I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. I’m not aware of any health plan that covers condoms.

  8. Boonton,

    If it’s immoral to cover either contraceptives or viagra, then how can it be moral to cover the doctors’ visit that produces the script for either?

    You claim it is impossible to stop doctors from covering Viagra but is necessary for coverage (which can’t be stopped) to cover contraception. If it can “not cover” the one it can “not cover” the other.

    I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. I’m not aware of any health plan that covers condoms.

    Exactly. They are somewhat inexpensive and a viable contraception option. So why then does health care need to cover contraception at all? Apparently liberals think them far far too expensive an option. That’s the only excuse that makes sense.

  9. Boonton,

    This still leaves women in a bad position since birth control pills are often prescribed for non-contraceptive reasons.

    Then they aren’t “birth control” pills. Duh.

  10. You claim it is impossible to stop doctors from covering Viagra …

    Of course it is possible, you just need to have you boss virtually in the doctors office with you. If you talk about contraception or ED the doctor has to stop you and tell you that this cannot be discussed while you’re doing a visit covered by insurance. Instead you must pay for non-insured visit should you wish to discuss it. What’s very strange, though, is despite the claim that not covering contraception is a very important moral stance for some, this hasn’t occurred to anyone. usually people who have real moral concerns actually, like, think about them. If people don’t really take these concerns seriously why are you wasting our time insisting that we must take them seriously?

    Exactly. They are somewhat inexpensive and a viable contraception option. So why then does health care need to cover contraception at all?

    It doesn’t, and there are alternatives to viagra if you want to get it up. Perhaps an ‘adult magazine’? And insurance doesn’t have to cover it. Nor does insurance have to cover child birth. Perhaps a misogynist can design health insurance that doesn’t cover things like breast or cervical cancer.

    Go ahead and make as many eccentric insurance policies as you please. But we have defined a min. set of things covered to be considered ‘full coverage’ and those policies are given the benefit of various tax breaks and subsidies. Why should contraception be covered? Because you have to go to the doctor to get it (condoms, which do not require a doctor, are not covered), because people who use contraception have manage it in their doctor/patient relationship (I’m talking birth control pills here, not condoms again), because contraceptive drugs are also used to treat medical problems such as endometrioses so it would be pretty invasive of women’s privacy to force her to explain to a boss or insurance carrier whether she is having sex and seeking to avoid pregnancy or simply seeking to treat a medical condition.

    Then they aren’t “birth control” pills. Duh.

    Don’t play stupid. Many drugs carry multiple indications.

  11. Boonton,
    You still haven’t explained why coverage can be “not covered” or not supported for contraception but cannot for Viagra.

    Don’t play stupid. Many drugs carry multiple indications.

    Stupid on you. Coverage can be for a drug for a purpose to be covered, i.e., if medical marijuana is covered it isn’t covered for entertainment. The “indication” or purpose for which a drug is prescribed can in fact be indicators of whether coverage is applicable.

    Go ahead and make as many eccentric insurance policies as you please.

    I can “make up” whatever I want. However, actual insurance companies in the actual US are not permitted to sell new polices which do not meet Obamacare standards. This is the problem. A objecting corporate insurance policy must offer those coverages.

  12. Mark

    You still haven’t explained why coverage can be “not covered” or not supported for contraception but cannot for Viagra.

    This is your problem. Your side is raking women over the coals for desiring that contraception coverage be considered standard in health coverage yet nothing is said about ED. Why the double standard here?

    Stupid on you. Coverage can be for a drug for a purpose to be covered,

    Usually drugs are a seperate policy than medical care so all your drug company normally knows is that some doctor wrote you a script for a certain drug. Doctors sometimes provide ICD codes on their scripts but not always. I suppose it can be required but then we fall back to your boss basically minding your business. If that’s the relationship that works for you and your boss then that’s fine for you but I don’t think most Americans want to make that the standard.

    I can “make up” whatever I want. However, actual insurance companies in the actual US are not permitted to sell new polices which do not meet Obamacare standards.

    Yes they are. In fact the Little Sisters case appears to be moot because they purchase their coverage from a church group which is regulated by ERISA and does not cover contraception anyway. Policies can and are sold off the exchange.

  13. Boonton,

    This is your problem.

    You have a prior problem. You inferred that ED cannot be stopped because that would entail too much intrusion between Dr and patient but that contraception could be stopped. You have not explained the distinction why one is a problem and the other is not.

    Usually drugs are a separate policy than medical care so all your drug company normally knows is that some doctor wrote you a script for a certain drug

    So?

    If that’s the relationship that works for you and your boss then that’s fine for you but I don’t think most Americans want to make that the standard.

    If that’s the case, why make a law requiring it? If it is true “Most American’s don’t want” then they won’t do it.

    Yes they are.

    No. Corporations cannot provide “substandard” coverage. This was the problem.

  14. Boonton,

    Usually drugs are a seperate policy than medical care so all your drug company normally knows is that some doctor wrote you a script for a certain drug.

    Usually? So what? I don’t see the problem. If an insurance company policy said drug X provided for codes A,B, & C but not D … that’s all it would take. The Dr doesn’t provide the code. Patient can’t get prescription filled because drug store says “not covered .. no code”. Drug store says, “Let me get the code.” “Dr provides the code”. Eventually Drs will put the code for those drugs automatically. Voilla.

  15. You inferred that ED cannot be stopped because that would entail too much intrusion between Dr and patient but that contraception could be stopped. You have not explained the distinction why one is a problem and the other is not.

    OK you win, ED can be stopped. So why are republicans trying to slut shame women for desiring contraception coverage while leacherous, decrepit old male republicans are making working moms pay for their nearly century old hardons?

    So?

    So you’re a pharmacist, a woman shows up with a script for, say, tri-cyclen. She may be on birth control, she may be treating severe acne, or maybe trying to control endometrious. It also may be possible her doctor is trying the drug for an ‘off label use’ because he has a hunch it might work to do something. You are probably not going to know and the insurance company is probably not going to know.

    If an insurance company policy said drug X provided for codes A,B, & C but not D

    And how does that work for the doctor who is being covered by health insurance? How does the anti-contreception employer make the health policy not pay for doctor’s appointments where the script for birth control is either discussed or obtained? See this whole argument about people’s ‘moral beliefs’ here seems a lot less worthy of serious attention than it appeared at first glance IMO.

    If that’s the case, why make a law requiring it?

    There is no law requiring it.

    No. Corporations cannot provide “substandard” coverage. This was the problem.

    Actually they can, and you can buy substandard coverage. The tax and subsidy advantages are only available to what has been defined as min. coverage.

  16. Boonton,

    So why are republicans trying to slut shame women for desiring contraception coverage while leacherous, decrepit old male republicans are making working moms pay for their nearly century old hardons?

    For exactly the same reason that the left seems to think that gay marriage is a more important issue than slavery.

    So you’re a pharmacist, a woman shows up with a script for, say, tri-cyclen. She may be on birth control, she may be treating severe acne, or maybe trying to control endometrious. It also may be possible her doctor is trying the drug for an ‘off label use’ because he has a hunch it might work to do something. You are probably not going to know and the insurance company is probably not going to know.

    So? The script could as suggested require a code indicating use. The code for contraception and acne are not the same. The pharmacist would require non-contraceptive codes in order to have insurance cover it. I’m unclear on how this is confusing.

    And how does that work for the doctor who is being covered by health insurance?

    I’m not sure why discussing health issues of any sort during a physical, for example, are a problem for anyone.

    See this whole argument about people’s ‘moral beliefs’ here seems a lot less worthy of serious attention than it appeared at first glance IMO.

    No. I don’t see.

    There is no law requiring it.

    So. You said you the essential problem was that prescriptions don’t include codes. That isn’t a problem.

    Actually they can, and you can buy substandard coverage.

    Then why is anyone talking about this? Oh, wait. Because you are wrong.

  17. So. You said you the essential problem was that prescriptions don’t include codes. That isn’t a problem

    What exactly is the problem here? That your boss can’t run your health care relationship with your doctor and pharmacist? I agree that ‘problem’ can be addressed with all sorts of technical fixes.

    Your problem is with the ‘why’. Why is it important? Because of those with deep Christian moral belief? Well in that case it should apply to doctor’s visits as well as scripts, yet it doesn’t. And the viagra inconsistency wouldn’t be so blatently at play. So if not that then why is this important? Barring a good answer, I see no reason why these decisions shouldn’t be in the hands of the consumer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>