JayB

Actually, no. Poverty and Terrorism This should be common knowledge by now. Check the CV's of the folks who detonate themselves and/or trucks, planes, etc amongst the largest concentration of civilians that they can slaughter at one time and you find precious few shoe-shine boys from Brazilian slums, disenfranshised Masai tribesmen, or Yemeni goat-herds. You do find a disproportionately high number of physicians, engineers, and the like from the more prosperous bits of the Muslim world. "It’s not poverty and lack of education, according to economic research by Princeton’s ALAN KRUEGER. Look elsewhere. What Makes a TerroristIn the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, policymakers, scholars, and ordinary citizens asked a key question: What would make people willing to give up their lives to wreak mass destruction in a foreign land? In short, what makes a terrorist? A popular explana­tion was that economic deprivation and a lack of education caused people to adopt extreme views and turn to terrorism. For example, in July 2005, after the bomb­ings of the London transit system, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, “Ultimately what we now know, if we did not before, is that where there is extremism, fanaticism or acute and appalling forms of poverty in one continent, the conse­quences no longer stay fixed in that continent.” The Archbishop of Canterbury, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, King Abdullah of Jordan, Elie Wiesel, and terrorism experts like Jessica Stern of Harvard’s Kennedy School also argued that poverty or lack of education were significant causes of terrorism. Even President George W. Bush, who was ini­tially reluctant to associate terrorism with poverty after September 11, eventually argued, “We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.” Laura Bush added, “A lasting victory in the war against terror depends on educating the world’s children.” Despite these pronouncements, however, the available evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate educa­tion as important causes of support for terrorism or participation in terrorist activities. Such explana­tions have been embraced almost entirely on faith, not scientific evidence." Summary

Sorry to hear about the theft, Plaidman. That kind of thing hurts. For most folks, each piece of gear represents a little bit of extra work, sacrifice, savings, etc, and the thought of going through all of that again just to replace what's been stolen is often way worse than the actual theft. They need to start building backpack-sized Lo-Jack devices...

That's "Freedom Kiss," traitor...

Cool. Maybe you can add a Paypal donation button/link to the WCC's website while you are at it.

So the real question is, when are you going to send in the check? If you can't swing the $100 to the WCC, I'd accept a $10 donation to the Rose and Milton Friedman Foundation in my name in it's place. https://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/howToHelp/Donation.jsp

How about you donate $50 to the WCC if I am incorrect, and you donate $50 to the WCC if you are incorrect?

No.

h7iBoq_yC4k

There's clearly nothing more regressive than masculinity.

One of the many rumors circulating is that resorts will no longer build jumps with "kick" (slope that progressively steepens over the length of the jump and will only build "wedge" type jumps with a constant slope over the course of the jump - in order to improve safety. If true (which I doubt) this would be a strange approach to take, since wedge jumps make it way easier to overshoot the landing, which is the cause of most of the serious/fatal accidents in terrain parks that involve jumps. Nevertheless, it'll be interesting to see how things pan out. Hopefully the response will include instituting park passes and other gaper-exclusion measures.

Have you guys released a list of names yet? I didn't see anything concerning who was selected on the Beyond website.

Good reminder that chairlifts evolved from mining equipment...

It'll be interesting to see how this goes over, business wise.

Sort of goes along with paying out of pocket until you reach your deductible. Ditto for choosing which catastrophic coverage you buy, etc.

I definitely think that there'd be a significant role for the state on the catastrophic insurance side, and on the upfront care side, in order to insure that that vulnerable populations are neither excluded nor have to entirely fend for themselves. I'd prefer to see the role of the state restricted to tax incentives/credits for catastrophic insurance, and setting rules for HSA's for non-vulnerable populations. In neither case should the state attempt to set or control the prices that providers charge for care. I also think that mentally competent adults who happen to be poor are perfectly capable of administering their own care, and would respond to incentives in the same way as people who make enough money to pay for routine car on an out-of-pocket basis - and I think that with the right incentives they'd tend to look after themselves better than a bureaucrat would, no matter who the said bureaucrat happens to be employed by.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. The kind of free market model JayB's talking about requires two things: easily definable goods and services, and fluid, open information. The health care market has neither. The system is so complex that the administering companies can't even negotiate it, nevermind a consumer. We regularly get bills we don't owe, and mysterious refunds from our insurer. It's not just difficult for consumers, including companies, to compare costs...it's impossible. Furthermore, the very nature of providing health care to humans means in an infinity of complications and unknowns. Not only are there almost an unlimited array of goods and services involved, but those services can quickly expand when complications, which are never very predictable, happen. I agree. The current system has neither. I don't think that you can make this argument about all systems other than a single payer system that's centrally administered by the state. Take a moment and look at the links I posted above for an example of an alternate model. If our plan comes together, my wife and I will be taking some time off from work this summer - might be several months - and this is the approach that we're going to use. High deductible catastrophic coverage, and cash-only providers for routine care. Tax credits and a HSA would be nice, but the advantages of this approach over paying hundreds of dollars a month for comprehensive coverage are incentive enough to make the switch.

If you click on the links that I provided above, you'll see the beginnings of a different model which eliminates insurers and the inefficiencies that they represent from the provision of routine medical care. It should be easy to see how such a model would work in conjunction with high-deductible plans coupled with health-savings accounts, especially those that permit the accumulation of assets in the said HSA's, with the cost of the policies offset by tax incentives that accrue to individuals, rather than employers. I don't think that it's inconceivable that you could structure the catastrophic plans in such a way that you encourage people to make prudent choices about their care, such as increasing premiums for those who don't get routine physicals, screenings, etc. For those who can't afford care, giving them access to a fixed dollar amount of money to spend on routine care every-year, that could only be used at clinics, hospitals, and pharmacies, and refunding them a portion of the balance that they don't spend* in cash provided they get the necessary checkups, etc - in conjunction with a gap that they have to cover themselves before the state kicks in the money for the amounts that exceed the balance is at least worth considering. Instead of giving doctors an incentive to refuse care to people who are on medicaid because they lose money every time they see a medicaid patient, they'd have an incentive to compete for their business, and medicaid patients would have more control over who they got their care from. *The "rebate" could be placed into a HSA that they could apply towards the "donut hole." in their coverage. For people who can't reasonably be expected to be responsible for their own care or the care of their dependents, it doesn't seem like there's many options other than letting the state assume full responsibility - both in terms of paying for and directing - their care. This would have elements of a single payer system in that the state would be paying out quite a bit of money for medical care, but at least when it came to routine care - neither a public nor a private bureaucracy would come into play.

So we would have you all believe. How I fathered and provided for three children who are now well into adulthood by the age of 34 is an attainment that I wish I could disclose more about were it not for the constraints imposed by trying to effectively maintain a duel online identity.

According to these guys Solution "Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans." So you like the idea of reducing the costs of a bureaucracy JayB, just not the idea of those savings going to those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of a "health care" system - namely, the patients? You must have had a rough childhood http://www.simplecare.com/about.html http://www.aafp.org/fpm/20060200/642500.html

According to these guys Solution "Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans." So you like the idea of reducing the costs of a bureaucracy JayB, just not the idea of those savings going to those who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of a "health care" system - namely, the patients? You must have had a rough childhood If insurers are competing for market share, particularly in a marketplace that's not composed of a mishmash of state-specific fiefdoms, are you suggesting that insurers that realize gains in efficiency will have no incentive to use the said gains to capture more market share by providing identical coverage for a lower price?

The administrative-cost-analysis may still come out in favor of single-payer systems if you account for the costs associated with raising the revenue via taxation in the same manner that you account for raising revenue via billing, but if intention is to compare costs accurately this is one of a few points that should be taken into account. It doesn't necessarily follow that if administrative costs are high, the only way to reduce them is via nationalizing every private component of the health-care system.

It was kind of a surprise to see the most immediate and dramatic impacts from the Salvini decision materialize north of the border. "Calgary, Canada - Citing guest safety, Resorts of the Canadian Rockies, operators of six Canadian ski resorts from British Columbia to Quebec, announced on Thursday that they would eliminate all man-made snow jumps from terrain parks at the company's ski areas this season. We are undertaking an industry-leading initiative,” says Matt Mosteller, Senior Director of Business Development for Resorts of the Canadian Rockies (RCR). “We have found that one of the main issues that increase the likelihood of serious injury on our mountains is big air. When we are making decisions about safety at our resorts, the big jumps in the terrain parks always come into the equation. We decided to make a change.” At the same time, RCR will be making an increased investment in new rails and features for RCR’s terrain parks. For example, this year’s RCR TELUS Park at Lake Louise Mountain Resort features the highest-ever investment in new features. RCR will have rail parks this season at Lake Louise Mountain Resort, Fernie Alpine Resort and Nakiska. In addition, RCR also owns and operates Kimberley Resort in B.C. and Mont-Sainte-Anne and Stoneham, both in Quebec. Mosteller acknowledges that the news will be disappointing to some. "We realize that this change may disappoint some guests who regularly use these man-made jump features," he acknowledged. "However, we believe we have a strong moral obligation to not compromise the safety of our guests.” With the new rail park format, RCR will host a Rail Jam Series that will take place at Lake Louise, Fernie and Nakiska. Features used in the Rail Jam Series will be suitable for a high level of competition, while also adhering to safe practices, resort officials indicate. For the past three seasons, RCR has also worked hard on developing its family-friendly terrain parks. These unique parks, separate from the larger parks, feature small rails, boxes and rollers, encouraging learning, safety and fun in a non-intimidating environment. The feedback on these parks has been positive and they will continue to develop at all of the company's resorts." http://www.firsttracksonline.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3188

Sierra Trading Post: As of now they have both the hammer and adze available. Old/discontinued model, not the new model. http://www.sierratradingpost.com/p/325,96680_Black-Diamond-Equipment-Cobra-Adze-Ice-Axe.html

There's one set of conceptual/cognitive traps that we needn't worry about Prole ever falling into...

What happens to life expectancy when you correct for deaths that occur in murders and automobile accidents in each country.... Table: Raw Life Expectancy vs Corrected Life Expectancy [Left side = raw life expectancy, right side = life expectancy for those that do not die in homicides or car accidents] I can't vouch for the numbers, but I think they're worth considering. Once you correct for mortality in cases in which routine preventive care, or medical care undertaken to treat disease and/or illness, would do little or nothing to affect the outcome - what do the numbers that you end up with tell you about the actual quality of care in each country? If the numbers are correct, how would investments in addressing crime and road safety yield affect longevity in comparison to comparable investments in preventive medicine?