A lipid panel is one of the most basic blood tests in modern medicine. Doctors use it to measure cholesterol levels in their patients, probably millions of times each year.
This is not a procedure where some hospitals are really great at lipid panels and some are terrible. you are running blood through a machine and pressing buttons. That's it. And that all makes it a bit baffling why, in California, a lipid panel can cost anywhere between $10 and $10,000. In either case, it is the exact same test. "What we were trying to see is, when we get down the simplest, most basic form of medicine, how much variation is there in price?" More than 100 hospitals — with more than 100 different prices.
For this research, published Friday in the British Medical Journal, Hsia and her colleagues compiled reams of data about how much more than 100 hospitals charged for basic blood work. The prices these facilities charged consumers were all over the map. The charge for a lipid panel ranged from $10 to $10,169. Hospital prices for a basic metabolic panel (which doctors use to measure the body's metabolism) were $35 at one facility — and $7,303 at another. For every blood test that the researchers looked at, they found pretty giant variation. http://news.yahoo.com/10-169-blood-test-everything-170003116.html$10K for a simple blood test? This is outrageous. To say things are out of control with our health care is an understatement. It certainly shows you or a family member should ask up front what costs are at any hospital you are admitted into. What I would like to know is what [if anything] can be done to bring these prices back to realistic levels? Why can't there be equal billing right across the board? Isn't this something federal regulation should take care of? What would you do if you were handed a hospital bill that would drive you into bankruptcy or selling everything you own to pay? What can be done? |
|
|
|
Has Science Discovered God?Of the billions of people on earth....not one not even twins have the same fingerprints...,could it be possible... it helps God to keep track of all his creation? Einstein didn’t believe it was possible. Stephen Hawking said it might be the greatest scientific discovery of all time. What discovery baffled the greatest scientific minds of the past century, and what caused them to rethink the origin of our universe? New, more powerful, telescopes have revealed mysteries about our universe that have raised new questions about the origin of life. Has science discovered God? But wait a minute! Lightening, earthquakes and even babies used to be explained as acts of God. But now we know better. What is it about this discovery that is different, and that has stunned the scientific world? This discovery and what molecular biologists have learned about the sophisticated coding within DNA have many scientists now admitting that the universe appears to be part of a grand design. One cosmologist put it this way: “Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”[1] Surprisingly, many scientists who are talking about God have no religious belief whatsoever.[2] So, what are these stunning discoveries that have scientists suddenly speaking of God? Three revolutionary discoveries from the fields of astronomy and molecular biology stand out: 1. The universe had a beginning 2. The universe is just right for life 3. DNA coding reveals intelligence The statements leading scientists have made about these discoveries may shock you. Let’s take a look. http://y-jesus.com/more/science-christianity-compatible/2/ |
|
|
|
We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.
I think you are forgetting here that we are already very involved in this issue and have been for decades. Ignoring that fact and not talking about it doesn't make it go away. It seems that perhaps your stance is though that we shouldn't be involved at all? Which is fine, but that is far removed from 'not caring'. I am not saying we have to drop everything in medias res, but I would like us to start to back away, slowly. |
|
|
|
|
I know you don't believe in God. But from the seeing the actions of the tiniest micro-organism (a single cell is quite a busy place!) to the complexities of the mightiest galaxy to the mystery that is love, how can you not? If all the universe is an accident, well it is one heck of an accident. I don't see science and God as being at odds. I believe science helps us to understand, as well as our limited human brains can, the wonders of God's creation.
|
|
|
|
Science isn't interested in proving that God doesn't exist. Religion is not a factor in any of sciences many disciplines. Science has, quite by accident, shown that a God was not necessary for the creation of the universe and the creation of all life on the planet. If a God is not necessary than it follows it is not necessary to believe in one. Correct?
Sorry , but there is no "proof" that the universe just happened. That there would be no deliberate creative force (call it God, as I do, or whatever you like) is taking a greater leap of faith than the belief that there is a supreme and unifying power responsible. As to the exact details of how, I won't pretend to be so wise as to understand. |
|
|
|
|
We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them.
|
|
|
|
I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.
It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests. Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them? That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target. How do you know what side to pick? The U.S. has a long history of picking the wrong guy--Sadam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, the list goes on. Well that's where the discourse and the current debate comes into play. I just do not trust that any level of discourse and debate will help. We have an incredibly poor record of foreign intervention since WWII reconstruction. And that only worked because of the complete surrender of the enemies. So, if we want to go fight a ground war with millions of troops and drop a few nuclear bombs, we may be able to create the conditions for a successful intervention. But beyond that, I am not convinced that anything we do will help us or them. |
|
|
|
I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.
It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests. Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them? That would depend on the conflict, but in this case the existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and our own entrenched participation in said conflict through large aid packages to Israel have long created national security problems for the US and has made the US and its assets a target. How do you know what side to pick? The U.S. has a long history of picking the wrong guy--Sadam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, the list goes on. |
|
|
|
I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.
It's fine if you have no interest in picking sides; but it does seem a bit masochistic to suggest that you are content to simply "let them kill each other" when them doing so damages our own national security interests. Is that a fact? So intervening in foreign conflicts aids our national security interests more than it hurts them? |
|
|
|
|
I have no interest in picking either side. Let them kill each other.
|
|
|
|
The best thing to have done was to never have gotten involved with the Middle East at all. Except for defending Israel on Israel's soil, we should have stayed out of any mid east country. They are nomads, barbaric, and have always fought one another. Brother against brother, uncle against nephew, tribe against tribe. Keep them out of Israel and ignore everything else. With no interference, they will continue to kill each other. Without a common enemy, they will never stick together. But with a common enemy, they will fight the enemy. Leave them alone and they will turn on each other.
Defending Israel is one of the main reasons for attacking us. That and the fact that the US is mainly Christian is all it takes for Islam to hate America. Yes, but defending Israel from within its borders is different than being in the mid east countries themselves. Maintain a presence but stay within Israel. We could help them defend the Golan Heights, and let the Israelis use their air power. Um, just wondering on the weapons issue and the threat to the US....just how will weapons help ISIS attack the US? Do you think they will fire bombs at us, launch attack jets? Send a destroyer at us? I mean seriously dude, what weapons do you fear from ISIS on American soil that would be different from any other asshole terrorist? |
|
|
|
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/news...e.php?id=19455In what The Wall Street Journal calls the "lowest point" in Israel-U.S. ties, White House reportedly puts military assistance to Israel under close scrutiny after learning that Israeli requests for munitions were approved in military-to-military channels. US stopped missile shipments to Israel. Looks like Obama does not care one bit about our only ally in the region. "The move to suspend the arms supplies comes after White House and State Department officials discovered that the Israeli military had been receiving ammunition from the Pentagon without White House oversight." |
|
|
|
|
Well so far ISIS are a military/religious faction of extremists in a part of the world where that seems more the norm than the exception.
That they pose a threat directly to the United States is exactly the threat any proposed terrorist poses and we have, since the Bush failure of 9/11, done a pretty good job at stopping the terrorists.
I would suggest they do not like us and will, like all Muslim extremists, try to harm us...with exactly the same effectiveness, no more no less.
As for their actions in the ME I think we offer humanitarian aid where possible, protect Americans and see if our allies care to step up.
|
|
|
|
I wanted to cull this out. You in particular have made some excellent points, and put together a rational narrative over the last several years in support of a more balanced foreign policy in regards to the middle east. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, and I probably disagree more than agree with the sorts of practical actions that could happen (strategy issues), but no one with an IQ that reaches 3 digits could honestly say you haven't made a good case. And listening to the news, it appears 2 missiles were fired from Gaza to Israel before the ceasefire ended. This is certainly a winning strategy.
Well thank you very much. As for the people that I discuss the conflict with: They aren't my target audience. I usually engage with individuals who have very entrenched interests in the conflict. Tizanabi, Ghosthunter, Floppycock, etc were / are zionists (not used in any sort of conspiratorial or religious sense of the term, rather the political sense). Tizanabi flat out stated that he would 100% support anything that Israel ever did. Others like Mr. Baker are religious conservatives, thekinggov: neocons, and people like Verm, asfdxjhgdf, and Born2Run: racists / militants.It is for the Islamic Jihad (the group that appears to have fired them). They aren't interested in peace. |
|
|
|
I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians. This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)? Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice. Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity. Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below. I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives. Side note: G7 now It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done. Palestinian polls show that a majority of Palestinians want to not only live peacefully with Israel, but hope for reconciliation with Israel; which, in the midst of conflict and high levels of abuse, is fairly remarkable. NATO certainly seems to agree. |
|
|
|
I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).
The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in. finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic". You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see. The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up. 1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise. 2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly. 3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public. This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail. For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though. For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel. The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well. I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something. Part of your problem is you don't watch enough fair and balanced Fox. I wasn't really aware until last night how much effort Israel was putting into propaganda. There were some wild advertisements vilifying Hamas...who I don't really see in as bad a light as many others...and asking for your support via a website called "stophamasnow.com". I haven't worked up the interest yet to check it out, but they were pretty much on every 5-10 minutes. I have MSNBC on now, because I want to see if it's mass advertising. Well, and the 2012 ceasefire. But I also don't see economic opportunity as something that is going to improve things here for a couple of reasons (despite the fact that I usually love this track to conflict resolution): 1.) The ultra-Orthodox will prioritize occupation over economic growth. This is inherent to their social structure. And as long as such Orthodox parties are kingmaker parties within Israeli governmental coalitions then they will be able to block peace plan progress as they have in the past regardless of what the majority of Israelis want. 2.) Israel doesn't really need Palestine economically, it can (and has in some cases) simply push Palestinians out of the market and appropriate desired economic territory for itself through settlement expansion. |
|
|
|
I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians. This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)? Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice. Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity. Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below. I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives. Side note: G7 now It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done. I don't see any path period. Israel isn't a partner for peace. As you stated they are perfectly content with the status quo (for now). The best course forward towards changing that would be to attempt to change US opinions on the subject and / or Israeli opinions on the subject, both of which requires a public and open discussion of the details of the conflict among the voter bases of said countries. |
|
|
|
I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).
The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in. finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic". You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see. The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up. 1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise. 2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly. 3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public. This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail. For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though. For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel. The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well. I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something. |
|
|
|
I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians. This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)? Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice. Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity. Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below. I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives. Side note: G7 now |
|
|
|
3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public. The problem is that the Palestinians are attempting to do exactly the same thing, then they actually come out with ridiculously stupid comments that ruin any possible gain. Only if you can't distinguish between one Palestinian and another. Israel has the same sort of people, it's all a matter of being able to put them into context. We actually agree here. Agreed, though I would add conservative Israeli ideology to that list of problems. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
