RedSpawn

If Zuckerburg is on record saying that 50% of the workforce will be replaced by robots, he should provide some solutions for what society should do for the displaced "disposable containers." Robots don't have to provide for their families, but humans do. We have to be honest here. We will be competing against soulless metal and computer chips for our future jobs. We don't perceive this technological automation as a threat to our economic stability even though it is....but we do see the threat when its another human who is an illegal immigrant. Same encroachment problem different form. When the driverless car technology becomes fully automated, there will be a bunch of disillusioned drivers protesting in the streets when their "secure" jobs are replaced. Corporate America will march on and privatize the productivity gains/profits and pawn off the societal job eliminations to the government.

The problem started when we were given the illusion of choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the candidates for President. When you look at the candidates who weren't selected, you can immediately see this is no ordinary marketplace or natural selection process. Our political markets do not produce natural outcomes because big money, national committees, and big business (corporations) including the 4th estate are gatekeepers who CONTROL the selection of individuals for the candidacy menu! This is dangerous consolidated power that essentially disenfranchises the body politic. We the people argue over Trump and Clinton but don't really question the system that creates such horrible choices. Why is that? It is unfair to blame the people for selecting Trump when the broken system produced a final duel between Trump and Clinton. Trump is too inexperienced and allegedly unqualified and Clinton is too corrupt, puppet-like, and familiar. The whole notion that we even open the White House to another potential 8 years of Bill Clinton is antithetical to what our forefathers wanted, envisioned, or designed. No Former President who served for 8 Years should be in the White House again "just as" First Gentleman. He becomes an unpaid and unseen Senior Adviser to the President who influences her policy making. The optics alone smack of malfeasance and corruption. There are term limits for President for a reason. Political dynasties and media corporations have become too strong when they can influence outcomes and our menu choices this way. It's the illusion of choice. We are witnessing the "unnatural selection" of our menu choices for the highest office by those with big money and power. We should be reviewing and questioning HOW did we get this crazy menu in the 1st place.

Agreed. Accounts Receivable and Patient Revenue is first set. Then Direct Cost, Indirect Cost, Direct Materials, Overhead Applied and Cost of Services Rendered is 2nd Set. Problem is 2nd set where overhead applications and indirect cost applications are huge cost pools relative to individual services rendered and creates unjustifiable bills. Hospitals have been so top-line focused that they have not paid attention to cost control in the indirect cost and overhead applications. The billing gets more outrageous with outpatient services because the hospital can't hide all of that uncontrolled overhead cost inside a service where the patient doesn't stay overnight. Plus, as more hospital services are rendered on an outpatient basis, there are fewer inpatient services to apply that huge uncontrolled overhead to 😏. Very vicious cycle. It's time hospitals pull back the curtain on their overhead cost pools and focus on controlling their bottom line as well. Hospitals can't artificially grow themselves out of this overhead problem through acquisition of other hospitals. Economies of scale isn't the solution..... managing the overhead cost is an ugly, inescapable responsibility. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/10-reasons-why-hospitals-are-shifting-to-advanced-cost-accounting.html Then you got power play bosses like in this article====>An Art of the Deal move. http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/health-system-ceo-pulls-out-6m-check-to-pay-debts-during-budget-hearing.html

I think the gun show loophole should be conceded, but the registration of 200,000,000+ guns....nope.

You are too much....you took us way back http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/snl-church-lady.jpg

Very well stated! Point taken.

The underlying problem is at least twofold. People can't afford the hospital bill because they are poor. Also, patients can't afford hospital bills padded with an obscene amount of overhead. We in the industry call this ridiculous bidding. Hospitals have not been required to clean up their cost accounting structure--this is the true root cause; therefore, they have no earthly idea how much services should cost in an allegedly competitive marketplace. This is why the average patient must vehemently negotiate against the hospital's FIRST BILLING OFFER. Treat it like a buying a car from a car dealer...everything is negotiable. The hospital bill is just a starting point. For example, if I stay at a hospital and am not attached to any expensive equipment, I should not be billed $550/night for a room. I have stayed at the Ritz Carlton with 24/7 room service cheaper! Toothbrushes do not cost $10.00. In general, hospitals have not been required to have TRUTH IN BILLING PRACTICES; thus, they don't know how much their services really cost the patient so they apply all of their costs to overhead and are not compelled to track down inefficiency, waste, fraud, abuse, and poor inventory control. Any hospital worth its weight should be on activity based cost accounting structures. Anything less is simply uncivilized and undisciplined. See http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/lists/average-cost-per-inpatient-day-across-50-states-in-2010.html for crazy inpatient rates!

http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/the-13-demands-on-qatar-from-saudi-arabia-bahrain-the-uae-and-egypt Are these reasonable demands of Qatar? 1. Curb diplomatic ties with Iran and close its diplomatic missions there. Expel members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard from Qatar and cut off any joint military cooperation with Iran. Only trade and commerce with Iran that complies with US and international sanctions will be permitted. 2. Sever all ties to terrorist organisations, specifically the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIL, Al Qaeda, and Hizbollah. Formally declare those entities as terrorist groups. 3. Shut down Al Jazeera and its affiliate stations. 4. Shut down news outlets that Qatar funds, directly and indirectly, including Arabi21, Rassd, Al Araby Al Jadeed and Middle East Eye. 5. Immediately terminate the Turkish military presence currently in Qatar and end any joint military cooperation with Turkey inside Qatar. 6. Stop all means of funding for individuals, groups or organisations that have been designated as terrorists by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain, the US and other countries. 7. Hand over terrorist figures and wanted individuals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain to their countries of origin. Freeze their assets, and provide any desired information about their residency, movements and finances. 8. End interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs. Stop granting citizenship to wanted nationals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. Revoke Qatari citizenship for existing nationals where such citizenship violates those countries’ laws. 9. Stop all contacts with the political opposition in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain. Hand over all files detailing Qatar’s prior contacts with and support for those opposition groups. 10. Pay reparations and compensation for loss of life and other, financial losses caused by Qatar’s policies in recent years. The sum will be determined in coordination with Qatar. 11. Align itself with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially and economically, as well as on economic matters, in line with an agreement reached with Saudi Arabia in 2014. 12. Agree to all the demands within 10 days of it being submitted to Qatar, or the list becomes invalid. The document doesn’t specify what the countries will do if Qatar refuses to comply. 13. Consent to monthly audits for the first year after agreeing to the demands, then once per quarter during the second year. For the following 10 years, Qatar would be monitored annually for compliance.

Good answers. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facing-gop-opposition-senate-leaders-postpone-vote-to-overhaul-obamacare/ar-BBDmhlx?OCID=ansmsnnews11 The GOP is postponing the vote on TrumpCare after the Congressional Budget Office had some bad things to say.

This is the original posting from barmar that presented the notion of the gun debate: If the Scalise shooting "reopens the [gun] debate", we have to conduct a postmortem on how the shooting occurred in this scenario and see what gun law changes, if any, we should make to reduce the likelihood of it happening in the future. This type of ex post facto analysis is very necessary in my opinion. It is not deflection. I think it would be intellectually naive to assert that the shooting reopens the gun debate and we can go to our talking points without reviewing our current gun laws and carefully investigating the circumstances/events under which the shooting occurred. We have to answer the following questions with respect to more stringent gun laws and the Scalise shooting: The individual who shot Scalise had undergone and passed the background check for the gun. How will implementing additional controls stop the madness? If Hodgkinson had registered the gun, how would that have changed his ability to execute the crime in question? Do you think the gun training requirement would have prevented him from carrying out this vigilantism? Should we prevent individuals convicted of misdemeanors from obtaining guns since Hodgkinson passed a gun background check and had no felony convictions? See https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/law-enforcement-officials-identify-shooter-at-congressional-ballgame-as-illinois-man/2017/06/14/ba6439f4-510f-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.4d5f6a45489d for timeline of Scalise shooting.

Your wish is my command. . . . On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined. However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure). According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion. Subsidies then decreased dramatically from 2013 to 2016, because: • tax incentives expired for biofuels, • the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus funds were used up, • energy assistance funds decreased, • there was a 15% decrease in fossil fuel subsidies from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion, and • a 12% decrease in nuclear subsidies from $1.9 billion to $1.7 billion. But the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are indirect subsidies like decommissioning and insurance assistance, leasing of federal lands, and other externalities, unlike the subsidies for renewables which are directly for the production of electricity and directly affect cost and pricing. Within the renewables, electricity-related subsidies increased more than 50% for wind and solar, whereas conservation, end-use, and biofuel subsidies deceased more than 50%. This is unfortunate since conservation and efficiency usually yield great results with little cost or infrastructure requirements. The Institute for Energy Research and the University of Texas calculated the subsidies per unit of energy produced, or cents per kWh. This is a more relevant number for comparing different energy sources as it normalizes to the amount of energy produced (see figure above). Between 2010 and 2016, subsidies for solar were between 10¢ and 88¢ per kWh and subsidies for wind were between 1.3¢ and 5.7¢ per kWh. Subsidies for coal, natural gas and nuclear are all between 0.05¢ and 0.2¢ per kWh over all years. Much of the subsidies in 2010 and 2013 resulted from ARRA stimulus funding following the economic crash of 2008 and the end of ARRA is why the 2016 and 2019 numbers are so much lower. Solar also gets the most state-funded subsidies, some of which greatly exceed the federal subsidies. In my own State of Washington, where electricity prices are 8¢/kWh, the State pays me 54¢ for every kWh generated by my rooftop solar array, whether I use it or not. This has made my total electricity costs -7¢/kWh over the past two years, and will for the foreseeable future. Yes, that’s negative (-)7¢ per kWh. And this is on top of my 30% installation federal tax credit which came to about $6,000 for my 4 kW array. There is no doubt that these subsidies incentivize renewables, but what do they do to the cost of the electricity generated by them? They actually increase the cost. However, this cost is transferred from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and so goes unnoticed by most Americans. Using the per-kWh subsidy numbers from EIA and UT in the figure above, each kWh of solar produced in 2010 received 88¢, more than ten times the actual cost of any other energy source. These subsidies have to be added to the retail cost of that energy to determine total costs since that’s what was actually spent to produce it. So in 2010 and 2011, solar cost about 100¢ per kWh, and in 2013 and 2014, solar cost about 80¢ per kWh. Even after the ARRA funds were depleted after 2013, the cost of solar is still double what is usually given as its cost. For comparison, nuclear energy cost between 4¢ and 5¢ per kWh to produce over this time period. Remember, though, the cost to produce energy is not the same as the price charged for it. Price is set by the region and the market, and has add-ons for transmission, grid maintenance and other non-production costs. Subsidies decrease the price while increasing the cost. Although wind received more total subsidies, wind received much less subsidies per kWh produced than solar as it produced much more energy. However, it is nonetheless significant for 2010 and 2013 and about 50 times that of nuclear and fossil fuels, allowing wholesale prices for wind and solar to become negative, unfairly undercutting nuclear, hydro and coal prices. These subsidies for wind and solar will likely continue under the Trump Administration. Red States receive more of these subsidies than Blue States, so Congress is unlikely to kill them. In fact, in 2015 Congress extended the renewable tax credits to 2021. Although nuclear energy gets very little federal subsidies, and almost no subsidies from the states, that may be changing. States like New York and Illinois are struggling with the closure of perfectly good low-cost nuclear plants because of subsidized renewables and low-cost natural gas, foiling their state’s emissions targets and laying off thousands of high-paid workers. This is important since these subsidies have warped the wholesale electricity markets, causing negative pricing in some markets and threatening the closure of lone merchant nuclear power plants that don’t, but should, have similar subsidies to renewables. Especially since nuclear turns out to be as renewable as wind. Exelon is discussing legislative solutions with stakeholders that could secure the future of its Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, and some of their other plants in other states. The utility hopes that "anything and everything hopefully will be on the table for discussion," said David Fein, vice president for state government affairs. Unfortunately, this ideological disregard of nuclear as a low-carbon source has meant that there has been little substantial effect of renewables on emissions. From 2000, the point where renewables started to kick into high gear worldwide, to the present, the growth in renewables (18% to 23% of total electricity production globally) has merely offset the decline in nuclear (17% to 10% of total electricity production globally), with little net decrease in carbon emissions (see figure above). On the other hand, nuclear energy is beginning to rise again in the world. As Eric Hanson notes, "For the second year in a row, ten new nuclear reactors started to generate electricity in 2016, the highest number since the 1980s, according to the 2017 edition of the IAEA’s Nuclear Power Reactors in the World." However, until we promote all low-carbon sources the same, I can’t see how we achieve our critical environmental goals in time to make any difference to the planet.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#6c9fdfa0128c Hmmmm.

Because you were suggesting that I had overcounted the hand value and it's not so; either way you slice it, that hand is a 2 club open. I would love to hear how many points you consider this hand to have...

Duplicate--please delete

Guns are already subject to a background check (except those that are purchased at certain conventions), so why do we feel we need additional controls? The individual who shot Scalise had undergone and passed the background check for the gun. How is implementing additional controls to stop the madness? If Hodgkinson had registered the gun, how would that have changed his ability to execute the crime in question? Do you think the gun training requirement would have prevented him from carrying out this vigilantism? See http://wtop.com/alexandria/2017/06/sources-gun-used-in-scalise-shooting-was-legally-purchased-assault-rifle/ about his passing the background check. The shooter had no felonies on his record. So should we raise the bar and say that no one with misdemeanors can hold a gun? I am not against the training on a firearm by the way. It's just the government needs to be very careful when it is trying to play around with the 2nd Amendment. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/james-t-hodgkinson-identified-as-shooter-of-gop-lawmakers.html Sounds to me like Hodgkinson needs the help of a mental health professional, but that's not a national priority. We'll let the underlying issue escalate and revisit our gun control laws vis–à–vis the 2nd Amendment. <_<

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has: 21 HCP RAW; 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit; [Length points are an indication of trick-taking potential -- a 6 card ♠ suit has more trick taking potential than a 4 card spade suit--this is irrespective of honor holding] 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10; [Aces and 10's are undervalued so having a total of 4 of them should count as 13 points instead of indicated 12 points]. 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and [The ♠ suit having 3 of 5 honors further increases the trick taking potential -- that is inherently different than the 6 card suit itself] 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors. -- This suit is basically 4 tricks and is worth more than 9 points. If two aces are allegedly worth 8 points, then I am inclined to believe that AKQ10♦ is worth more than 2 aces and a mere J♦] I want you to honestly tell me how much you think AKQ10♦ is worth in point values because to me, saying it is worth 9 points is an understatement. All things considered, this hand is worth 26 points, but if you want to subtract off the length points for ♠, no problem--we are at 24 points, so why are we still downgrading this hand to a 1♠ open with a revalued 24 points? Under NO circumstances is this just a 21 point hand! This hand is too well controlled from the rooter to the tooter to be downgraded to 1♠ Give 2♣ its just due.

Honestly, I am not sure, but I don't believe screwing around with the Bill of Rights is the way to resolve gun assisted suicides. As a nation, our mental health programs are laughable and are in dire need of revamping. Our people are dying because they do not have the proper coping tools when they feel their life is hopeless and/or broken. Removing our gun rights is a means to an end, but it still doesn't properly equip the depressed and desperate with life coping techniques. The government hasn't gotten off of its collective ass to make mental health a national priority like War.

We are putting 2♣ on too high of a pedestal. Let's evaluate the hand in question. It has: 21 HCP RAW; 2 length points for a 6 card spade suit; 1 quality point for hand having THREE aces and a 10; 1 quality point for ♠ suit containing 3 of 5 honors; and 1 quality point for ♦ having 4 of 5 honors. This hand is functionally equivalent to a 26 point hand so why am I treating it like an allegedly weak 21 HCP hand? If you have a hand that can be revalued at 26 points all things considered, start the bidding at 2♣ because 1♠ is a huge understatement. Give 2♣ its just due!

And what about the quote: If guns are lethal weapons that require this extensive type of governmental regulation and public restraint, why assume that local, state, and federal police officers aka agents of The State are best suited to use these lethal instruments in their execution of their public safety duties against the general public? Again, it smacks of a moral double standard. If guns are dangerous instruments of evil beyond responsible use, no one should be holstering them to effect lethal damage upon citizens. I don't see how placing a gun in the hands of a human being with a badge and uniform is removing the attendant evil and risks involved in the use of a firearm. I was under the assumption that the 2nd Amendment is one of our unalienable rights; therefore, we shouldn't be in the business of infringing on the 2nd Amendment simply because of unpleasant outcomes that make the national nightly news. I think gun control brings up another large concern: The State frowns upon its own citizens deciding when they can exit this thing called "Life". That is for the Creator and the State to decide. Is the state trying to clamp down on the "unreasonable" suicide rate in the country through gun control?

https://www.ft.com/content/6453373b-d837-3b07-8c4e-c069b30b35b2 http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/06/jared_kushner_deutsche_bank_lo.html So I guess we are trying to lower the noose on Jared to get to Trump. Hmmmm

Citibank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, (JP Morgan) Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs were saved from peril even though they collaterized mortgages (or facilitated it) like other banks did but in larger dollar volumes. Please note that Goldman Sachs was not even a retail financial bank covered by the FDIC at the time of ithe collapse so the Federal Reserve Bank had to grant Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley bank holding company status so they could qualify for the $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout! See https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/goldman-morgan-to-become-bank-holding-companies/ And we get a heartfelt apology from one of the major masterminds of the debacle (a full year later): http://www.cbsnews.com/news/goldman-sachs-says-sorry-for-the-housing-and-credit-crisis/ But they want a billion dollar reward for their irrational exuberance in 2008 and 2009: http://www.rawstory.com/2009/10/goldman-sachs-2009-bonuses-to-double-2008s-23-billion-could-buy-115-million-iphones-or-send-460000-to-harvard/ I am not seeing how we rescue Goldman Sachs in this fiasco. We protect them because they help us prop up our fiat currency and capital markets. We keep the devil we know instead of letting a new devil come onto the investment banking scene--THAT'S the real moral hazard for Uncle Sam. Goldman Sachs and Uncle Sam (including the Federal Reserve) are partners in crime which is why Sachs received special treatment despite its grossly negligent, potentially fraudulent behavior. Investment houses have a fiduciary duty to their clients when they sell investment vehicles to them, yet Sachs sold such instruments to their unsophisticated clients and then bet against them in the derivative markets--conflict-of-interest be damned. I contend there were no serious buyers for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley because their business practices as investment banks were unsavory and atrocious circa 2008; no sophisticated investor knew how deep the rabbit hole was at their trading desks, so the Federal Reserve had to recapitalize them and allow them to "invest" their way out of the huge crater they created. Nothing has changed on Wall Street except the names of a few players. Old Money still runs the banking sector and the musical chairs the Federal Reserve Bank rearranged during the housing crash illustrated it. Old Money Banking corporations are not immortal; however, they are politically connected slick cats with nine lives. https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2008/1202/p03s05-usec.html

Please note that Item#1 does not apply to the banking sector as demonstrated in the 2008 housing crash. The government protected "old money" banking and investment institutions that it knowingly allowed to get to big to fail. And of course these corporate welfare recipients will gladly continue to contribute to lobbyists and political campaigns to influence federal banking laws and policy. Its a vicious cycle since most of the extreme risk takers were given a taxpayer-funded bailout instead of a VIP seat in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Large corporations don't die when Uncle Sam becomes Neo in the Matrix and breathes new life and fresh capital into failing corporations "for the greater good" of Main Street and the broader economy. These corporations, exclusive of American Insurance Group (AIG), are supposed to be bought by mid-sized banks for pennies on the dollar in a fire sale in bankruptcy court. That's the smaller banks' reward for not drinking the spiked Kool-Aid at the irrational exuberance party. That is what unforgiving capitalism looks like since it rewards principled conservatism with banking deposits and penalizes speculative casino gambling with untested derivatives. Old Money should have lost the banking battle in 2008, but instead Uncle Sam rewarded Old Money by allowing them to buy their failing counterparts in a fire sale. We saved Old Money and the economy but is that really a bonus when we have the same bad actors at the top of the banking pyramid?

Agreed. Our fluid corporate tax policy and automated capital markets have created short-term, fly-by-night institutional investors who focus intently on quarterly results and ignore the long-term implications of such shortsighted time horizons. These sophisticated investors are frequently making premature investment decisions based on quarterly results that do not accurately reflect the fruits of the long-term seeds the business has planted. Sometimes seeds take 3-5 quarters to bear tasty fruit. We have created an investor class who doesn't respect or appreciate the importance of macroeconomic principles in business management or corporate governance. This has led to irrational exuberance and trigger happy speculation in our capital markets where the assets prices of stocks are no longer supported by the underlying business fundamentals. Unwarranted short-term earnings pressure has led corporations to curtail research and development (R&D) expenses to satisfy institutional investors--even though R&D investment is key for new product development and long-term business profitability. You made me think of the proper terms and language.... Do corporations have a responsibility to honor the tacit social contract between employer and employee and the community at large? Or should corporations assert that the business of business is business and social issues they create/affect are outside their purview? http://www.economist.com/node/4008642

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183447/us-energy-generation-from-solar-sources-from-2000/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#bd987d228000 I think it will continue to grow exponentially provided the government doesn't play favorites and go through extraordinary lengths to protect fossil fuel energy development (coal, oil & gas) and public utilities (nuclear as well). The biggest impediment is government intervention in the "free" marketplace of energy generation. Never underestimate the power of government to override the natural laws of economics for its own gain. The growth in terms of solar power generation measured in millions of kilowatt-hours is at the beginning point of an e^x curve. Click on 1st link for 16 year history.

It probably excludes any and all out-of-pocket costs. Did you see that Trumpcare includes workfare provisions for states that offer Medicaid? We can't create jobs with livable wages, but we can mandate that Medicaid recipients work for extremely low-paying, unskilled jobs that have no viable career path. This should be a plus for the retail and fast food industry who will then have a semi-permanent underclass labor pool from which to choose and exploit. Imagine the possibilities.