Automatic differentiation only works on functions which are locally complex analytic. It fails on things that fall outside that model, but are still differentiable. Daubechies wavelets are a good example of this.
Julia's systems can make use of ChainRules.jl which doesn't assume locally complex analytic, and instead uses its Wirtinger derivatives (df/dz and df/dzbar), and if complex analytic just uses the well-known simplification df/dzbar=0. This allows for non-analytic functions to be used, and you just need to supply all primitives in Wirtinger form. Julia has enough non-ML people using this stuff that complex numbers actually get used here :).
They might coordinate with TVA for transients (i.e. going from an idle machine to a full-machine run), but in normal operations these systems are at least 50% full. In my experience as a user these machines are more than 80% most of the time. I don't have hard numbers on the average utilization over the last week/month/year (these might even be classified), but you don't by and build such a machine to be idle.
I could find the numbers for two German super computers I have used in the past. SuperMUC (Phase 1 and 2 combined) had "above the desired 85%" utilization in 2017 and Hazel Hen at HLRS in Stuttgart reported a utilization "between 92% and 98%" in 2017.
> When I took a tour of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility a few years ago, Buddy Bland, who is Project Director, told me he could tell when he comes to the Lab in the morning if they are running the LINPACK benchmark by looking at how much steam is coming out of the cooling towers.
That is true. But very few super computers track power consumption for different codes and do power aware scheduling. SuperMUC and IBM actually do a lot of research on this, because it is a rather new field in HPC.
Pulsed femtosecond lasers have repeat rates in the megahertz. The total energy is very high. When I took laser physics in grad school, they were able to drop a razor blade through the beam and slice it in half. That was in 2013.
So yeah, pulsed lasers can do it, and I'm certain the Air Force would rather be using them. They are finnicky though.
Both systems are cutting edge and a the limit of what we can build. They are not using a continuous beam because it’s inherently better, they are using it because it’s the best compromise.
Was the time-averaged power higher than 50kW? I think that's what we're talking about here. Peak power is a measurement of something else entirely, and I wouldn't be surprised if this military laser were also pulsed. But it's quite uncommon to find a laser with 50 kW of time-averaged power output, let alone on an airplane, which is what makes this impressive.
Yeah, a Petawatt is huge, there is nothing on earth (well, see next sentence) that can provide that sort of average power continuously. For comparison, 4PJ is basically the output of a kiloton nuclear weapon, so one second of a PW laser needs a nuclear weapon powering the thing.
Averaging 50kw is impressive. However, unless you can keep targeting the same area for X unit of time the average power output over X period is not important.
That said, I would be shocked if they can dissipate enough heat to fire a continuous beam for an hour. It’s very likely designed to be pulsed over longer time periods.
> So yeah, pulsed lasers can do it, and I'm certain the Air Force would rather be using them.
Do you really think they are so incompetent so as not to have thought of this?
I’m sure the labs developing these are aware of what you’re suggesting, have probably even tried them, and have their reasons for the design they’ve chosen.
Ok, but if we're including things which are currently impossible then I'd assume they'd rather just use Professor X and have him mind blast the missiles out of the atmosphere.
Every new design is building something that does not exist.
We already have pulsed lasers with average power output in the kw range over several hours. Even better, this thing does not need to fire for hours at a time so you can skimp on heat dissipation. But, you can buy 2kw laser cutters off the shelf.
Really, scaling it up in a lab is one thing, but getting everything else to work like dealing with vibration, portability, and targeting is hard. So, while this design had slightly better tradeoffs, that does not say much about the design space they where working with or what they consider useful vs required. Ex: What frequency is this?
The product lineup is solid; even if they go bankrupt, the debt owners will simply wipe out the shareholders, prune away the less profitable parts of the business, and scale back the expensive R&D ambitions. The Model 3 will still be produced since the fixed costs are already paid.
(Not my view that they actually will go bankrupt. But failure due to overspending on fixed costs tends to work out differently than being unable to cover marginal costs.)
I don't but have a cynical view on this based on experiences several friends have had. There are people who will question the charges and try to work something out. But there are also those who feel like there is no option for them so that dialog does not take place and then the debt gets sent to a collection agency and things just get worse.
Buddy of mine breaks his collarbone, gets some pins put in. They drop him a bill for $25k.
He says "I'll give you $1500 now, or you can send me to collections."
They took it; now I use this technique all the time.
They make up a number which is how much they hope to get out of you, and you should return the favor by make up another number. Then scream at each other on the phone for a few hours before coming to terms.
Sad that it's come to this, but medical billing is a shell game. You can play it too.
>They took it; now I use this technique all the time.
I’ve done this once for a $12,000 bill for a few stitches. They refused any deals, until I showed I actually took video of hospital staff promising it wouldn’t be more than $2,000 before treatment, in response they waived the entire bill.
The way you phrase this though...how often are you receiving acute medical treatment?
As a British person living in the UK reading stories like this seems so crazy. The very idea that when Americans are ill they need to negotiate with these huge institutions seems so utterly bizarre and messed up.
Surely if people know they could be fined thousands for simple treatments like stitches they avoid medical care altogether? Then things could get worse and even more expensive...
As someone from the EU, this reads like dystopian fiction. I pay about $120/month into the state (mandatory) health insurance system. In return, I get crappy first-contact healthcare, but I know I am covered in case anything bad happens.
Example: ending up in a hospital in Italy during a skiing holiday involves showing your insurance card (or simply giving the number). That's it: there is no payment, no negotiation, nothing — you just get healthcare services and you're done.
The EU gets criticized for many things, but universal healthcare across the entire union is something that should get more praise than it does.
>> As someone from the EU, this reads like dystopian fiction.
As someone living in the US (thankfully well insured and decently paid), I can confirm dystopian reality.
Everything works well 97% of the time, until you have something that falls out of the confines of the giant decision tree -- and then things go really wrong. I used to think everything was well until we had a difficult pregnancy/delivery. In such cases, there are professionals who's service is bill reconciliation!
Even if you don't have health insurance, in most of Europe you are fine. Especially in Central/Eastern Europe, where doctors in public hospitals work extra hours privately to make a better living.
Well, I think in all of the EU, you will be treated no matter what in an emergency. It doesn't matter if you have health insurance or not. That's the whole point of universal healthcare, something I've come to regard as a basic right in a civilized world.
>Surely if people know they could be fined thousands for simple treatments like stitches they avoid medical care altogether?
This is what happened to myself. I've had persistent breathing problems and the last time I went to a specialist for it they charged me $3,000 to breathe in a tube for 15 seconds and say they don't have any ideas as to what was wrong. I haven't been back and try to ignore the fact that I have trouble breathing daily.
Same with me and these random chest pains I get. I've wiped out my HSA, still not close to meeting my deductible. Hooked up to an EKG for 15 minutes and monitored for an hour in the ER? That'll be $5k. 15 minutes on a treadmill with an EKG attached for a stress test? That's $2.2k. I would continue to pursue until I had an answer, but I simply can't afford it.
There are two options for you you can set up a fake business and buy health insurance for your employees as long as you have two such as you and your spouse. Another option is to visit a private urgent care clinic. The doctors and prices at urgent care are usually pretty good. Make sure the urgent care is not attached to a hospital.
Also a Brit. I think about my various trips to hospital throughout my life and cannot imagine the difference if I was coping with money at the same time.
As a child, breaking my arm was upsetting, but imagine if it put additional financial strain on an already strained family?
My motorbike accident age 18 would have just been flat out medical bankruptcy (and potentially worse/incomplete recovery). I was pretty miserable anyway, adding that would've been demoralising in the extreme.
I mean, you are also seeing the extreme cases float to the top because articles like these attract anecdotes. It's hard to tell how widespread the problem is because people who pay a more reasonable amount for stitches don't comment in these kinds of threads. For all we know this only happens .1% of the time
FWIW, I've never had such extreme bills. The largest bill I've received in the last few years was $2000 for my wife's epidural, but I only paid about $400 of it (insurance paid the other $1600)
Nearly 100% of people spend some time in a hospital in their lives.
Unless you're claiming that hospitals only gouge some tiny subset of people and are benevolently generous to everyone else, that number is going to be much closer to 100% than 0.1%.
When I lived in the US, I have personally experienced this, even with top-tier insurance--from both ends: I've had insurance decline claims arbitrarily and pass on five-figure costs to me, and I've had hospitals misclaim things. In both cases, I had to spend dozens of hours on the phone to resolve it.
Most people in the US are far less privileged: Their insurance is not as good, and they don't have the luxury of spending dozens of hours on the phone.
It's just a matter of time until you experience this.
> Unless you're claiming that hospitals only gouge some tiny subset of people and are benevolently generous to everyone else, that number is going to be much closer to 100% than 0.1%.
Actually, yes. Doctors and hospitals have relationships. When a hospital is aware that a good referral source referred them a patient, they will try to keep the patient happy to maintain that source of business.
They're very selective about who they try to screw.
Now if you walk in with no referral and no family doctor, then you're their source of profits and the party they'll try to milk.
Though, actually, the one time I've been referred to the ER by a doctor (he called ahead and everything), the billing was still a shitshow. Insurance delayed paying for months while they tried to work out a way to claim it was a pre-existing condition (this was pre-Obamacare), until the hospital gave up and tried to send me directly to collections for upwards of a quarter million dollars.
Given that most private practices (around here, anyway) usually have lucrative hospital affiliations, the incentive to keep doctors happy by keeping patients happy really doesn't exist.
Most people hand it off to insurance and don't look at it twice. My parents have a story of looking at a paid by insurance bill that included $2,000 for two ibuprofen pills. They questioned it, and everyone involved (including the insurance company) said "why do you care, insurance pays for it?"
They don't pay list prices either, and have negotiated something much less. The list prices are basically a fantasy hoping to gouge the unknowing, while the rest of us feel like we got a discount.
Patient has a 20% copay. The provider bills $100,000. The provider "pays" $80,000. The patient pays $20,000.
Provider then pays a $70k kickback disguised as a discount on other charges, fees for participation in the system, etc. (or never even pays the EOB amount). In fact a total of $30k is paid for the services, and 66% of that comes from the patient.
Insurance gets away paying $10k instead of $24k (80% of $30k). Provider gets the business by being on insurer's provider list. Patient thinks "I'm glad I paid $20k for Insurance. My health-care-spend ended up being $40k instead of $100k." In fact, they'd have been better off without insurance, which would have only cost $30k.
are you claiming most people don't have deductibles and copays? or no in & out of network coverage. if so I'll call BS on this. I've had instances of being billed from out of network provider even though I went to in-network hospital. this is such a common occurrence that John Oliver did an episode on it.
I'm reading what you're saying, and it makes me sad - as if you don't believe that people without insurance are just liars. People are avoiding getting medical treatment because it may financially ruin them. Do please believe them.
Take another look at that chain of bills. I would guess that if the initial bill was for $2000, the hospital only received $800 or so total. So insurance paid half, you paid half, but you think insurance paid for much more when really they just swatted away a fraudulent price.
Yes, very few here have been on the receiving end of a $143k magnitude extortion. The people who have are less likely to be writing HN comments and more likely to be slaving away in the mines of Rura Penthe. But these exceptional stories fit the exact pattern that anybody who has interacted with the healthcare racket has experienced, even though most ultimately dodge the (biggest) bullet.
> The government approved treatments are all strictly priced.
I kind of like Japan's system based on what I've read so far, but I'm still not sure of one thing:
Does regulated pricing have a chilling effect on drug companies?
It seems like it would be impossible for a Japanese drug company to be viable if the government gets to fix the price so that anyone can afford it seeing as new drugs can cost billions to develop.
No, it doesn't have a chilling effect because pharmaceuticals are a global market. The dirty little secret is that the US having crazy rates like "$2000 for two ibuprofen" as mentioned in another anecdote in this thread is exactly what enables price fixing in most of the rest of the world to be functional.
The disaster that is the US healthcare system is architected to eliminate any concept of price transparency to directly confound free market processes, and is costly to line the pockets of middlemen and pharmaceutical and medical/biotech firms, because their pockets aren't being lined elsewhere in what is an essential and large global industry. The US effectively subsidizes healthcare around the world by paying out the nose, and the entire thing is perpetrated against the American people by intentionally introducing smoke and mirrors to the process.
It would be astoundingly easy to fix. All you'd need is a law/regulation that says drug companies can't charge US customers more than the average price for the same drug in say, Canada, France, Britain, Australia, and Japan.
Suddenly we'd be paying a lot less and if we are subsidizing the cost it'll for them to raise prices in those other countries.
The government gets to fix a price doesn't mean the drug company has to make it (or exist), right? So presumably the price would be set at some point where there is still a profit to be made.
On the other man I am making the kind of money I can never ever make in UK, so US is optimized for individual gains and high health care cost are side effects this bal game.
The hullabaloo over "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" goes a long way to explaining how health-care used to work in the US. Most simply it was a free market and free markets work.
In more detail: Independent doctors (and their staff) functioned as buyers' agents would refer patients to specialists. "Doctor-Patient Relationship" and "Referrals" were the two main components of the system. Knowing that DR. JONES referred PATIENT SMITH to them, the specialist would treat PATIENT SMITH well and charge a reasonable amount.
It was unfortunate in that you had to "get in" to the system by finding a good doctor. It was (and more now than ever is) hard to "find a good doctor." Most are no longer accepting new patients, but it served all those parties. Doctors would have repeat customers. It'd reduce their work of learning new patients. Etc.
Without such a family doctor, you would go to a provider without a referral. The provider would then know it could gouge you without risking a referral relationship.
However this system was sub-optimal for insurance company profits and large scale providers. Which is exactly who pushed Obamacare, and lead to the break-up of so many of these relationships.
As background, Health Insurance has lists of "approved providers" which they carefully curate. The most straightforward method of breaking up relationships is to exclude providers. They also put these "good doctors" (from the patients' perspective) into plans with expensive premiums. They also churn. By raising prices selectively between plans with different providers insurance companies can encourage patients to "try out" a new doctor this year. They also churn provider lists.
This means Insurance companies are now a more powerful source of referrals. They also prefer institutional providers. Between both of that, fewer providers care about where their patients are coming from. The patients often don't have much choice where they go (one of 9 different locations of the same conglomerate) and don't know enough to make an informed decision anyway (as their family doctor used to do for them).
All of this is brought about by the individual mandate. It's not a free market if you're not free to abstain. By being forced in, cash buyers became a smaller segment of the market. Cash buyers were the very people holding it all together by selecting doctors of their choosing and forming these relationships. With these doctors going out of business (largely retirement) and being replaced by institutional providers it's just getting worse.
There was also the scare-mongering associated with "keeping your insurance plan". Failing to realize that a great many people had been diligently paying for a plan that was NEVER going to pay out for any reasonable expenses. Plans so bereft of decent coverage that it would have bordered on criminally negligent had the ACA offer something like them. But how do you make that argument? You can't keep that because it's shitty and we can't offer something worthless? They should have made this point but it was honestly not on their radar, that something so miserably bad would be out there.
> All of this is brought about by the individual mandate
Some of us are old enough to remember dealing with healthcare before Obamacare, and can testify to this having been the status quo long before there was an individual mandate.
I think their assumption is that you do all that thinking and negotiation while picking an insurance provider so it's covered.
But then you get carted unconscious to a hospital you are covered for but looked over by an "out of network" doctor, whatever that is.
Being an American seems like a full time job. You have to watch your back so society doesn't eat you. The frequent obsession over credit scores I see on Reddit is another one that baffles me.
Credit scores don't matter in the way it sounds. If you're trying to do tricky things like rotate through credit cards for their benefits (like airline miles), then it requires closer monitoring, and it helps to watch in case some sort of fraud is going on, but that's about it.
That said, keeping up with looking after your own back in America does feel like a full time job at times. :/
And leverage depends on clarity regarding price/performance. Neither of which is readily accessible for health providers. Way too many variables, of course, but some basic price facts would go a long way toward improving the situation.
I live in Mexico and have had to get stitches many times. Paid $4 per stitch in the private hospitals in Guadalajara. I paid $24 in cash with the pesos in my pocket and walked home.
Even the dentist system in Mexico is walk in, pay, walk out for high quality work. I tried to go to the dentist when visiting family in Texas and had to fill out paperwork and pay to be a member first.
Seems like the only benefit of the US system is when you have a nice job, everything is basically free. Probably why nothing will change too much anytime soon. To quit your nice job to try to start a business forces you to gamble with your healthcare.
The odd thing here is that in the US, dentists work more like you expect doctors to in Mexico.
You can generally go to any arbitrary dentist and ask "how much does procedure X cost?", and get an itemized estimate that will be very close to what you actually pay. I have never heard of paying to be a "member" first.
It was explained to me that the reason dentists operate differently is that historically very few people had dental insurance (either their plan didn't offer it or they declined coverage), so dentists developed fair pricing and kept price lists so their patients would know if they could afford a particular procedure. Now that dental insurance is common, the practice remains because most plans have a yearly maximum, so if you need expensive work done (e.g., multiple implants), the dentists/oral surgeons will work with you to schedule work so you are only billed up to your yearly maximum.
It's far from a panacea but it works better than the medical insurance system.
Algodones, NM is a medical and dental border town. Wife of a friend had to get the majority of her teeth worked on or pulled and US dentists and their insurance quoted them around $16,000 out of pocket.
They flew into Algodones and got a hotel, walked across the border and had it done for $2,000 total for a multiple day procedure, anesthetics, and pain relief meds. The dentists are board-certified what from I understand, but don't ask me about the particulars or malpractice statistics.
IIRC, there were about 300 dental clinics alone in the local area to choose from but I don't know if that's an exaggeration.
isn't it true, however, that in MX if you don't already have the money to pay you will be turned away? If you walk into an ER in Guadalajara with a broken wrist and no money/insurance, what do they do?
lolwut? Even in my story above where I casually walked into the hospital, they had no idea about my ability to pay until after treatment had been rendered.
And just like in the US, you can walk out the front door at that point. But unlike the US, nobody is deluded into thinking you're bailing on a $12,000 bill because you got some stitches.
I got stitches in Austin five years ago after drunkenly slipping on a party barge and gashing my head open. The whole time I was getting stitches, someone was there using scare tactics to ensure I was going to pay for them, tried to take my name and info down, suggested that maybe we should only do 3 stitches instead of 4 if I wasn't going to give them my info. Probably extra pushy because I was drunk.
They billed me thousands, I gave them the $100 in my wallet and walked out the door.
My experience in Mexico for basically everything related to healthcare has been superior to the USA, from drugs to child birth to surgery to other healthcare fields like dentistry. I'd probably rather get cancer here, too. I know a Mexican here with a brain tumor that gets operated on every year. He can walk in to a public hospital, but he prefers the private ones. His last operation, he paid $1,500 cash. I don't even want to know what that would cost in the USA. Probably the rest of your life in servitude.
The USA is nice when you have a cushy white collar job like most HNers, and that's what I don't like. I don't want to work a cushy job all my life. I want to live off my savings for years at a time, live on a beach, take risks, start things, yet not lose half my savings when I have an accident. As far as I'm concerned, the USA can't deliver that.
I've asked Mexicans living in the US what happens if you go to the hospital and have anecdotally been told that they will absolutely turn you away for inability to pay unless you are dying from trauma, hence why I asked.
Two storys now, you've told me of people who have actually paid for healthcare in MX. What happens if you are destitute and need gallstones removed, for example?
Doesn't surprise me. Look how ignorant Americans are of their own system as well. In this very thread Americans are revealing that it's possible to counter-offer at hospital checkout to save $10,000. Should be common knowledge, no?
Instead it's a highly upvoted anecdote in every HN thread about American healthcare. It goes around like fire-side superstitious oral story-telling. What's even the limit on this story? The guy above offered $1,000. What about $100 or $10? What about just leaving with a $0 bill? Since the latter is possible, is the $1,000 a meaningless gesture so we don't feel like assholes? Is this the system?
Also, Mexicans in America are often of a Mexico-hating variety since they left Mexico, and in my experience they will often pander to Americans by dumping on Mexico. Just like what you see in Americans abroad that play up the bullshit.
The destitute in Mexico go to a public hospital under the Seguro Popular program. I lived across from one.
Interesting. There's a large homeless population in my town, and I've always wondered how difficult it would be for them to get emergency medical care.
Video recording like that is totally throwing the staff under the bus (they will undoubtedly be talked to about making commitments like that).
I'm sure hospitals will all include a "all promises maid by staff are null and void unless documented in writing" waiver if the practice becomes widespread.
>I'm sure hospitals will all include a "all promises maid by staff are null and void unless documented in writing"
Despite all the FUD about health care prices, most states have consumer protection laws that require providers/hospitals to provide estimates for services upon request. Therefore, by law (state by state) the hospitals could not employ the tactic you suggest.
Which states specifically have these laws? What's the typical legal name for these laws? Couldn't find anything on this in a few quick Google searches.
In Florida you can checkout Florida Statute 395.301 (Price transparency;itemized patient statement or bill;patient admission status notification).
I know this off hand, and don’t have the time but from there you could probably find a few websites that will reference comparable laws for each state, if they exist.
Law is an unforgiving beast so you would always want to refer to the source law they cite, and finding case law (much more difficult task) which references said Law and see how it’s applied/interpreted in practice.
What you linked is certainly much more practical for educational/informational purposes.
>And the patient getting thrown under the bus by getting screwed with a 5x bill is fine?
Where did I say or imply that?
I think it's fully worth it and wouldn't lose sleep over throwing the staff under the bus. If you want to work for an establishment that screws people getting screwed back occasionally is just one of the risks.
About ten years ago, my wife had to get her gallbladder removed; they had a bill of $75,000. Her family was very poor, didn't have insurance, and they similarly made an ultimatum of "you can either get nothing from us, or you can get $5000", which the hospital accepted. $5000 was of course still a struggle, but how absurd is it that they were effectively doing a 1500% markup for a life-saving procedure?
If they hadn't known about this trick, there's a good chance that her family would have had to declare bankruptcy to pay for this, which of course means that the taxpayers are stuck footing the full bill.
Well, they took some amount that covered their costs. It's not clear they made a profit or not. They know some will not pay and pass the cost onto the rest of us.
Fair enough; I guess I would just be happier if we had an NHS-style system where taxes just cover everyone. The reason my wife had serious gallbladder issues was because she didn't go to the doctor to get it treated when she first started showing symptoms (because she couldn't afford it), and then had to go to the emergency room.
Anyway, I get that they pass the costs onto the rich people and/or the insurance companies to cover the people that aren't paying, but it's still depressing, since a lot of people don't know that you can "haggle".
We were charged $9000 for epidural during our first child's delivery. After a lot of back and forth between me, the hospital and the insurance company I ended up paying $99.
I never tried to understand the logic.
I had two insurance companies when our first kid was born, and the hospital completely botched the filing leading to both companies denying the claims because of late filing and so on (we gave them additional the info they needed a few days after the initial claim was denied — they didn’t refile until nearly a year later).
They tried to come after us for 10s of thousands of dollars in bills.
After much back and forth with insurance companies and the hospital most of it was either discharged or paid for by insurance, they eventually sent us to collections for $1000.
Unfortunately for them, I had been taking detailed notes of conversations, including people I talked to and dates and times, and had gone through itemized bills, noting things like duplicate charges, and multiple times I had been lied to on the phone by the billing department about what paperwork they had filed with the insurance companies and when along with documentary evidence by the insurance companies.
By my reckoning they actually owed me an $800 refund from a check I had sent them earlier to cover a charge that an insurance company later paid.
I said if there isn’t a check in the mail today for $800 and the collections notice retracted, I’m taking all this information and filing in small claims court.
It was taken care of that day.
My kid was already walking by the time the billing was handled for his birth.
It’s so depressing because as a hospital, we have absolutely no complaints about the care. It’s hard to believe that they can be so competent at delivering care and so completely incompetent at billing for it.
Seriously you should. Companies fear State Attorneys General. I filed a complaint against one of the major wireless carriers with my State Attorney General office. Within days I had someone from the executive offices at head quarters calling me to resolve the issue. Companies know that State Attorneys General have teeth and resources to sue or fine companies found to be breaking laws or being abusive. I suppose it also helps to have a consumer caring (rather business caring) State Attorney General.
Yet hospitals are not killing (no pun intended) it like apple or Microsoft. The massive margins are getting eaten somehow. Expensive equipment, salaries, commissions, patients telling them to shove the bill. I don’t know something is missing
There is another dirty side to our healthcare. They generally lose money on the uninsured and in some cases Medicare/Medicaid. Essentially we pay for that coverage with our dollars.
The "emergency rooms must treat" law (I forget the name or how long ago it was, sorry) resulted in state governments stopping funding public hospitals - which made this state of affairs basically inevitable.
In what way are these guys different from mob guys running a protection racket? They seem to operate exactly like thugs that come to a restaurant, ask for money for "protection" and then often walk away with 10% or less of what they asked for.
This seriously can backfire, though. The hospitals where I lived... they took folks to collections. They would take you to court for a fairly low amount of money and garnish your wages. Sure, it takes longer, but they'll get their money. IIRC, in the state I lived in, they can take 25% of your pay as long as they leave you an amount equal to 30 hours at minimum wage.
How can you avoid the "backfire" of having to pay the whole bill? Just pay the whole bill straight away?
People should be honest and pay reasonable bills. But forcing collections and/or lawsuits is one way to put on display for everyone how bad our medical care charges can be.
I have had some issues getting sent to collections before I get any bill, or not sending me the right bill and still sending me to collections after I try to figure out what I actually owe.
I learned to just pay like $10 a month regardless of what happens. Then if insurance decides to pay for it I get it refunded or it's put towards my deductible. The clinic sees me "trying" to pay for my bill and don't send me to collections now.
I doubt it would work everywhere, but it's beyond frustrating.
When using the technique, be sure to get confirmation in writing that the bill is paid in full.
I've used it twice before. Once the hospital offered to consider it paid in full if I paid my entire $500 copay at time of discharged (i.e. anything left after copay + insurance payment would be written off).
The second time, I was able to get a facility fee negotiated down from $5k to $1k. The $4k difference found it's way to debt collections and onto my credit report due to the way the payment was written down in the system, and it was hell getting it dealt with since I didn't have explicit confirmation that the $1k wasn't a partial payment on the full bill.
Won't the healthcare market fail at some point if this keeps going on? I mean there might be some big loan somewhere that will default one day. No idea what will happen then.
There is a whole lot of accounting magic, and forecasting that goes on. They know that they won't get a lot of it, but there are several things they do to "mitigate" their "loss". They get to write it off on their taxes. They'll often sell unpaid debts to 3rd party debt buyers. They'll get some money out of bankruptcy etc.
What market? If you get problems from regulation and the solution is always more regulation you eventually get a Rube Goldberg state run health system. If the US wanted cheaper medical care they could disaggregate medical care and actually try to drive down costs. As it is the supply of people who want to be doctors just keeps going up and there are plenty of foreign doctors who would be delighted to work in the US who aren’t allowed to do so. The AMA doesn’t want nurse practitioners and it doesn’t want foreign doctors and they’re winning. Hell, look at India, they have something close to a free market in medical care and factory line hospitals where people get better at the procedures they do by doing one thing many times and list prices. Why can’t the US do that?
> One of the things I like most about India is it's medical system. As an American, I've experienced both the Indian and US medical systems, and at this point I have a very strong preference for the Indian one. Somewhat surprisingly, the Indian medical system is based on free market capitalism, and as a result it tends to provide a much better experience than the US system.
Thank you for pointing this out. I really hate articles that treat the rack rates presented to uninsured consumers as a fixed bill; it's not. I think this is something where articles could do a better job of explaining to readers how the rates are really an opening to negotiation (the negotiations already done by insurers).
I do agree; it's taken me years to overcome my aversion to negotiation. It wasn't until I saved a million dollars on a contract just by asking(!) that I appreciated the process and how many transactions can be negotiated.
The Idaho legislature is totally dominated by farmers (I mean this literally: The Idaho congressmen are primarily farmers.). These farmers are allowed way better deals on hooking up solar and providing it to the grid than city consumers. In addition, a large number of farmers already have solar panels since grid hookups are very expensive.
The "California arbitrage" has been very profitable for Idaho for many years: This involves selling California renewable hydro, for which they pay a premium, and buying coal from Utah to replace it. (Ever driven north of SLC to Idaho on I-15? Those high voltage transmission lines are there for a reason.)
If I had to bet, I would suspect the lines from the Nevada coal plant also supply California, and Idaho Power will sell the solar production there.
Even if nobody does the pumped hydro scam, green energy is often sold twice: once locally, where people know the energy they use comes from clean sources, and once somewhere else where customers pay a premium for a certificate stating that the energy they use was pretend-swapped with a place where the local supply is clean.
Nobody in Norway will ever consider their Tesla coal powered because someone in Germany had their utility buy the hydro bragging rights off the Norwegian utility, but the German driver will happily believe the illusion that someone in Norway is responsible for the coal use, thanks to a tiny premium he paid on his energy bill. And it's not even quite as bad as it sounds, because that tiny premium does indeed influence the market dynamic in favor of green energy, it's just not quite as clean as the on-paper-swap would make it seem. That Norwegian who benefits from his utility selling off green bragging rights will never be tempted to outbid the German for that certificate, because the facts of energy provenance are on his side no matter what.
It's true that there aren't really such things as "green electrons" in a vastly interconnected grid. And it's true that my "60% Green" plan often gets to that 60% with REC's purchased from a renewable plant half a continent away that any reasonable analysis would tell you the raw "electrons" or "energy" doesn't really reach me.
But you make it sound like there's some double-spend accounting going on. I thought that RECs had to be tied to the output... if Norway sells some hydro RECs to Germany, the electrons may not technically reach the German driver (it doesn't quite work like that), but they did have to at least leave Norway in a way that the Norwegians can't count them in their own consumption.
I know energy markets are the most complicated beasts out there, but can you explain how this sold-twice accounting works in more detail?
I think you misunderstood (or I misformulated): I'm not accusing Norway of selling more certificates than they should, I'm saying that the buyers of the actual "green electrons" won't feel the tiniest bit dirtier from the certificates having been sold. The "double spend" would be virtually clean (from a certificate) plus actually clean (but with the certificate sold).
It boils down to the question wether this is true or not:
> but they did have to at least leave Norway in a way that the Norwegians can't count them in their own consumption
This reads as if Norway could only sell certificates for surplus energy they exported (sans certificate), but I think they can sell certificates for as much green energy as they produce, virtually downgrading their own consumption to coal/gas/whatever energy source is greenified with the certificates. Of course it would hurt their on-paper emissions, but who would honestly care about those when you know that in reality you are clean?
Ah, lemme see if I get this now. So the REC certifies 1MWh of clean energy was produced. It doesn't matter where it was consumed (that's kinda a nonsensical question anyways), but only the holder of the REC can count it.
You're saying the Germans feel good (and paid a premium) for the Norwegian RECs certifying a few MWh's of clean energy were produced somewhere... the Norwegians can't count the RECs in their accounting (so they're "dirty" in official stats), but they don't care because although you can't point to individual green electrons, they know their grid is green whether the accounting says it or not.
So the "double-spend" is the Germans get the official credits because they paid for them, but the Norwegians don't care about the accounting and self-count themselves as green.
I have written multiple scientific desktop apps, scientific web apps, written multithreaded and CUDA HPC codes in C++, lots of scientific Python code for low-CPU apps, scientific visualizations in Three.js and D3.js, and I wrote much of boost.math, which you can clone and look at my commits. My boost commits are basically a list of "glue" tools for my projects, quadrature, denoising, interpolators, statistics, so on. Fairly experienced in Eigen for linear algebra.
We grow conductive multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Some of the layers may be semi-conductive. But in bulk they are a conductive material. We haven't refined the process to the point where we can select for conductivity type yet.
