This one is deceptively important. I spent several years self-learning actuarial science. I had a solid statistics and math background, but incorrectly marginalized the business aspects as being simple. I'm also introverted and stubbornly independent and didn't recognize what I didn't know. If I had more aggressively sought out peers earlier, I would have gotten further.
I'm going against my nature and meeting with a friend weekly to review queries for a SQL class we're both taking. Just talking with him and catching each other's mistakes has been worth as much as my O'Reilly book.
I appreciate all of the data they include (even if most of it is processed using their proprietary metrics), but their articles aren't so great. They seem to take the attitude that articles are just filler - they rerun articles pretty regularly. But their data is extensive and relevant.
Except under very strict circumstances, not charging everyone (including insurance companies) exactly the same amount for everything according to a practice fee schedule is illegal under the US healthcare system. Just because the insurance company doesn't actually pay the full amount (contract law gets mixed in here), it doesn't mean that a self pay patient gets to have free services. One reason medical costs are so high is because doctors are generally paid the lesser of the service charge amount on their fee schedule or the insurance company contractually allowed amount. Simple game theory dictates their prices be as high as possible.
Self pay patients can be charged less if a standard sliding fee schedule is created by the practice. This is to make sure that discounts are applied uniformly across all self pay patients against some criteria (e.g. 10% discount for families at 400% of the federal poverty level). I'm sure there are other ways too, but they must be applied consistently.
In the highly unlikely event the doctor's office is prosecuted for failing to charge her for a splint, I'm sure they could plausibly call it a billing error. Note that they didn't charge her less for the splint (which only cost them a few dollars), they simply took it off the bill.
I'd love to see the DA actually try to prosecute the doctor for this. It would make a great reelection platform: "I prosecuted doctors for failing to charge uninsured patients $300 for a $6 splint."
My guess is your third option. If AmEx can continue charging 2.5% while reducing their operating costs to a point that would make 0.5% profitable, that's lots of moolah for them.
I'm sorry that I'm just now hearing of the Revolution card. I use AmEx for no good reason at all, and a not insignificant number of merchants won't take it because its fees are so high. Of course, AmEx could also solve this problem by just reducing their percentage to 2% with the new technology.
AmEx absolutely reams merchants, but it's probably in your interest to use one if you can, because they provide a lot of nice benefits to the buyer. This includes extending warranty coverage, travel and rental car insurance, accepting returns if the merchant won't, and actually having decent customer service if something goes wrong or a merchant rips you off.
What I'd like to see is a merchant that actually splits the transaction cost savings with you, so e.g. if you use a Revolution card, your groceries cost 1% less (and cash saves you 1.5%). This probably violates their merchant agreements with the other card vendors, though.
I've asked the Swedish Competition Authority (konkurrensverket) by email why such agreements are legal. A merchant obviously has more to lose by not offering card payments, so they're in the weaker position.
The authority seemed to be uninterested, like they didn't want to do anything that impede the grow of card payments over cash. Cash being quite expensive since it is "robbable".
The price of a product is set with product cost + average transaction cost. If I pay with a card that has a transaction cost under average, I'm paying for the benefits given to owners of cards that have transaction costs above the average.
Hence, I have much to win from getting a card that has a very high transaction cost and gives me many fringes. Merchants see average transaction costs rise...
This probably violates their merchant agreements with the other card vendors, though.
It does. There is a clause when you setup a merchant account that you cannot discriminate against one card over another (or, inversely, incent customers to use a particular card).
I defined this distinction to an older relative about a year ago (right after I apologized for "geeking" all over her shiny new coffee maker, which I had taken apart and put back together). To illustrate, I used music. A music nerd knows which years qualify as classical or baroque and which composers wrote what. A music geek tunes their own piano.
Seat belt laws.
For years, my inner Libertarian would cringe at the idea that the government could force someone to do something they didn't want to when it was their own life at risk. But then my inner Republican realized that if I were to be at fault in an accident, I would be financially and possibly criminally liable for a much steeper offense if the other party wasn't buckled up.
Not to sound harsh, but your logic here epitomizes the stereotype of conservative as uncaring/greedy/self-absorbed. Instead of being concerned that people will die, your reasons for supporting seat belt laws is that it reduces your liability. Maybe you actually have some concern for human life, and don't actually intend to leave that impression; if not, it's worth considering how you present your argument, because right away you've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly utilitarian (or perhaps libertarian) view of the world.
I think maybe you missed something in his post. How is he being uncaring/greedy/self-absorbed by acknowldedging how he is impacted by others' decision to use a seatbelt or not?
He isn't saying people shouldn't wear a seatbelt. He's saying it should be their choice. If someone chooses not to wear their seatbelt, they obviously care more about their own convenience and comfort than their safety and well-being. Why should he (or anyone else) worry about their lives more than they do themselves?
Not to sound harsh, but I think that your logic epitomizes the stereotype of the extreme liberal who thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to support and take care of you. You've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly socialist view of the world.
Of course, if you're not alienating someone, then you're probably not thinking things through enough to form a strong opinion. So, good on you for having an opinion either way ;-)
It's more that I don't feel it's the government's place to tell people that they must wear a seat belt. It's their place to hold car manufacturers to safety standards that make sure their seat belts are effective and safe. It's their place to make it publicly known that wearing a seat belt greatly reduces your risk of injury or death in a collision. Beyond that, I feel very strongly that it is personal responsibility and choice.
When I realized that allowing this freedom could possibly encroach on my freedoms, it became a different issue. And I changed my mind.
In Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People" he says to never argue with anyone, since you'll never convince the other person and if you do they'll resent you for making them look foolish (or something like this).
The case for wearing a seat belt is my exception to this rule. I was talking to a "libertarian" friend and he mentioned his life is his responsibility and he should wear the seat belt or not if he didn't want to. I told him that if he got in an accident and paralyzed because of not wearing seat belt then it wouldn't be fair to the rest of us tax payers to support him because of his decision. (This was in a modern country with universal health care).
He thought for a second and said, "oh, yes, you're right".
Wow, I never thought of that. However, I don't think the answer is forcing people to wear seatbelts, but rather to exonerate the at-fault driver from the other driver's decision against seatbelt use. The former not only encroaches on people's rights, but it doesn't actually solve the problem mentioned, because the other person can still decide not to wear a seatbelt.
Luckily, I live in a no-fault state though. But still, that's a very good point.
There are all sorts of cases like that. We're probably going to get universal healthcare, so other people's health expenses affect you since you'll be paying for them. So cattle prods + fatties + treadmills = more freedom for you.
I'm glad I'm not a libertarian or I'd be experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I guess these are more science/engineering than hacker, but I think the following cooking sites match the title pretty well:
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/
When I want to make something new and complicated, I go here first. Great layout, photos with every step, and no assumed prior knowledge.
http://www.cooksillustrated.com/
The magazine has more content than the website, but when I took the time to read a two page essay about how to make pork lo mein, down to what cuts of meat I could reasonably expect to find in an American grocery store, I was not disappointed. These are the same people who endorsed wadded up paper towels as the best turkey lifters after extensive testing.
Of course, for real recipe hacking, I go to the substitutions section of the Joy of Cooking to see what insanity I can dig up. My best to date is a non-dairy chocolate cake that used lots of mayonnaise, and I really want to experiment with flax seeds as an egg substitute.
Yeah, I stopped reading when I realized that his Minimalism criteria (nothing he didn't want) was so completely confounded by his Completeness criteria (everything he did want). Although it was nice to see a list of web based task managers all in one place.
I’ve never had good results using a french press with a blade grinder. You need such a coarse grind for the press, and fine grit is just inevitable with a cheap blade. I got a burr grinder several years ago, and my french press coffee has improved immensely. Of course, the clean up still sucks - I only break out the press for fresh, interesting coffee that I happen in to.
