ColoNoCoHusker

Sorry, I meant to expand on the discussion and not necessarily agree/disagree with either of the quoted posts. That wasn't clear in my post. Ah yes, the good ol' "royal you" issue ;-) No worries, lol

Ya. Exactly. Manning put us in harms way. WikiLeaks exposed a fraud/corrupt campaign/candidate. You realize how they stay on the same side with their support, right? The side that would be doing right. You realize Manning exposed the US killing civilians and journalist too right? If you haven't actually looked at the wrongs that Manning exposed, you should go investigate it. The most damning is a video showing US forces knowingly (the audio makes it clear that they knew) killing innocent people including journalists and even first responders. You know, the kind of actions we decry terrorists for perpetrating. I have at length and you have misread my question... Manning uncovered acts that could be considered unconstitutional and definitely would fall into unlawful orders/military conduct. She had been jailed for doing this. She has not benefited at all. Folks are saying she is evil. She did what she believed to be right AND has paid a heavy price for doing so. Trump requested for a foreign entity to hack/cyber-attack a government official/agency. This request was made for personal gain. This request could be interpreted as treason as defined in Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Trump is not decried for this and his request is to be celebrated as bringing light to bear on an injustice by those (some?) who vilify Manning. Explain how what Manning did was so evil and what Trump did was to be celebrated. I truly would like to understand the thought process here.

Good link, thanks for posting it. I had access to referenced Tuft's research data previously and it was interesting to dig through...

A lot of tax money goes towards research but the figures I have come across have been much lower than 95% for private biotech research. The issue is the way the research is structured; if indirect research/relationships were counted it could get that high I suppose. As far the percentage of R&D, that is massive for a private enterprise. If you compare it to other sectors and translated to actual dollars it would stand out even more. Tech/software companies typically carry around 8-10% R&D? I remember hearing IBM in it's heyday was like 2-4% true R&D; most of it's research was paid contract for clients so it was actually a revenue center... And the industry is highly varied. One company really doesn't represent the market. It's tough because looking at the entire industry also glosses over some challenges. It's interesting if nothing else

I apologize if I contributed to derailing the thread.... I actually think it was the perfect graph to illustrate the issues around Healthcare. It is easy to say the problem is X or Y. In reality it is complex and a larger number of factors than are apparent on the surface. Understanding a small amount of the complexities allows us to better evaluate the ACA and work towards viable solutions and real improvement...

I honestly don't have a problem with what doctors make. 8+ years of college and 300,000-400,000+ in debt, along with having our health in their hands.....they should be making a lot of money. And....your doctor's salary isn't the biggest problem with the cost of health care. But...it's a convenient boogie man. So when a doctor gets a bonus from a pharmaceutical company for prescribing needless medication, it doesn't concern or bother you? But at least drug reps are no longer allowed to show up unannounced or provide food to clinical practices and staff. Glad our government is cracking down on the high-risk/high-corruption activities... I would assume those figures are their salaries from whatever hospital/clinic they work. That is the part I don't have a problem with. Where in that data does it show how much they make off of pharmaceutical companies giving bonuses? The "earnings" is calculated from self-reported data on questionably structured survey (being nice). Things like pharma/distributor bonuses typically come through the practice so those could be excluded. Also, the survey ignores a lot of direct expenses...

I don't disagree that if we want top talent, we have to focus on the population centers. One could illustrate the same point with a heat map highlighting the locations of 5-star talent though. It wouldn't seem as sensational but neither would it seem "rigged". Having to cut out sections on the East & South/Southeast seems a disingenuous way to illustrate a valid premise...

I honestly don't have a problem with what doctors make. 8+ years of college and 300,000-400,000+ in debt, along with having our health in their hands.....they should be making a lot of money. And....your doctor's salary isn't the biggest problem with the cost of health care. But...it's a convenient boogie man. So when a doctor gets a bonus from a pharmaceutical company for prescribing needless medication, it doesn't concern or bother you? But at least drug reps are no longer allowed to show up unannounced or provide food to clinical practices and staff. Glad our government is cracking down on the high-risk/high-corruption activities...

https://twitter.com/JohnBishop71/status/822493706053947395 Because Iowa sucks. And Wyoming blows...

That is pretty telling. I mean yes and no. That looks like a gerrymandered map. Radius is more telling or even a google maps drive for time. Look due south, the map cuts out and then in again. It's still telling, but they're inflating the numbers. Well put, was about to mention similar.

Is it too late to hope New England follows through on its threat?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Convention#Secession

Back-office guys like Gundy are hard to come by and exceedingly invaluable. I am happy for his success but I hate to see him go.

The stock market has been great for like 2 months...hopefully it stays that way. The equity markets are performing on expectations of Trump instituting tax cuts for the wealthy. If that doesn't happen by April/May, the equity markets will start to recede...

I think the issues with Pharma are misunderstood. The issue with Big Pharma is the cost structure to bring a drug to market and then the process get insurance to cover it. For every successful drug, there are hundreds that don't go anywhere. The successful drugs have to cover the costs of the failures ***. The rules around capitalizing research dollars in biotech make partnering with research universities less attractive in many situations. Insurance companies have more influence over drug pricing than is healthy. And then, as you mention, the pricing based on each country's wealth index exacerbates the issue. Making changes to this structure will bring costs down faster than almost anything else. Fundamentally, there is already a monopoly on individual drugs (even accounting for generics). Acknowledge it and act accordingly instead of ignoring it and letting it get out of hand... *** Viagara is a wonderful example. It was originally developed as a heart or blood pressure med in the early 90s. It wasn't viable due to a persistent side-effect. It took someone with some foresight to fight internally to look at the drug for E.D. Not only has it been a success, it launched a new drug sector and is now being used to treat other non-E.D. conditions. None of the secondary research could be accomplished without the drug approved for a primary condition. It is too cost-prohibitive to conduct secondary on their own...

I will probably regret asking... The military oath of enlistment specifies protecting the US Constitution from all enemies foreign & domestic as the first & foremost responsibility. For 60 years or so it has been established there is such a thing as an unlawful military order/action. Manning shed light on some activities that in my mind could fall into being against the spirit of our Constitution and be deemed unlawful order based on WWII, Korea, and Vietnam military precedent. Manning did not profit personally AND she has been in jail; even on release she will find it very difficult to find employment. As dudeguyy & knapplc indicated, Trump asked a foreign power to hack/attack the US solely for Trumps personal gain. This act could easily be considered treason as defined/worded in the US Constitution. I am trying to understand how Manning's action is to be so vilified and Trump's is to be lauded??? A road map would be nice (seriously)...

I usually feel like I should post more often than I do. The situation with Enhance89 & 1995 Redux make me glad I don't. It would be quite the ego bruise to lose a starting lineup vote to 84HuskerLaw. I never thought 84HuskerLaw would make me feel better about myself. So thanks, I guess....

Knapp - While the rank/order of compensation is probably accurate, the actual numbers in the Medscape Compensation Report are generally regarded as quite inflated. The survey is pretty flawed in determining earnings but rather than fix it, Medscape/WebMD just blame the participants... Dudeguyy - Prior to the ACA, pre-existing conditions were lapsed-based. If you ever had a gap in insurance, anything that occurred at/before that gap fell into not covered. It was total BS and removing that clause is not the financial drain the Repubs are making it out to be. If it was, you would see the insurance companies' leadership at the front of this public discussion. They are not for good reason... JJ - Sorry to hear about your experience. As a small business owner in Colorado for 10+ years now, I have had to deal with the same issues. However, my experience is the exact opposite of yours in terms of cost, premium increases, and quality of coverage. My family has more medical issues than anyone I have ever met. As an employee for others I had stellar insurance. As a business it's been pretty close to that. With the ACA, our costs came down a lot. I will say that Anthem BCBS and Kaiser are probably the two worst providers for small businesses. I have had an insurance broker even before starting my own company. I would strongly urge you to find a good broker as I think it would make a world of difference. It has been my position for years that the main reason for premium increases is simply because the insurance companies can do it. I have experience with claims processing systems and revenue assurance projects for the largest insurance providers. Imo, health insurance cannot be a free & open market; how can it be when it is literally a matter of life & death? It is a monopolistic, collusion based system. The plight of Colorado HealthOp is a great example of how insurance companies work in this country. This health cooperative started post-ACA. It was highly profitable from the outset and provided excellent and affordable coverage. Rather than compete with the cooperative, the three largest insurance providers in the state lobbied the Division of Insurance, Governor, and State Reps to get CHO dropped from the Exchange and delisted. The reason given by the state in deslisting CHO was a $30 million shortfall when the cooperative had over $50 million in cash. It was classic private sector corruption of government policy standards, imo.

The conservative backlash has made it's way to HuskerBoard... #DraintheSwamp #LoveTrumpsHate #NotMyHC lulz

As a few have mentioned, the issue with this approach is it opens up the door to providing direct benefits to family members. While UNL has a lot of money, that's not a situation we can win. Paying for family on OV - makes perfect sense. Providing players tickets for games - agree. Paying for travel/lodging/other expenses of player's family to attend games - where does it stop? Do we reimburse Gebbia's dad for his NE residence? Do we pay for people's cable/satellite who cannot physically attend? If somebody gets into an accident in UNL AD paid rental car, does UNL insurance kick-in? Does this only apply to scholarship players or family of all student-athletes? IDK, it seems to me that just because UNL AD has money doesn't mean we should be spending it on benefits for family members. I don't see how that could even be argued...

It's not where it needs to be but better than say 8-10 years ago. I know that eradicating such mindsets in our governmental branches would seem to be less of a challenge than the same challenge on the streets, or you would think, but I can tell you that its not. There are still those ole social events where the so called powers, smoke their cigs and talk around the corner, just out of sight and ear shot of the public they are bullsh*tting. Cannot speak to law enforcement but as far as military, I think it is hidden a lot more is all. I have a couple good friends that are Prof's at the Air Force Academy. They have been there for over 15 & 20 years respectively and view racism/sexism/integrity issues as being the worst they have witnessed in their time there. It started going downhill after the last big scandal. A lot of it is the disconnect that has been growing in America on whether racism/sexism is an issue. Whites & males typically believe it is a thing of the past; those on the other side have been losing their voice over the last decade trying to decry that it's still there...

[...] I would still maintain that it was US voters who decided this election [...] Wouldn't that always be the case, at least in theory? The issue is how those voters were influenced. Whether the media is good or bad, outside the fake news sector, the media typically runs with some semblance of the "events". If those are being influenced by another country, that is a big issue. It is the same problem our Founding Fathers identified with the need for an educated citizenry. That doesn't necessarily mean a college degree, rather literate folks using critical thinking skills. I think way too many voters are unwilling to research and vet politicians/policy/issues/etc. While we need voters across the board to be better participants, we also need to take an extremely strong stand against ANY external entities trying to influence our elections in any direction. The fact it was so feasible for Putin to influence even 1% of our voters should be very distressing us all... As far as the other points, I am often split on whistle-blowers like Manning. On the the one-hand, I can see her actions being viewed as a betrayal of her duties. On the other hand, I can see where Manning believed her actions, while violating NDR/Secrecy rules, was actually her way of upholding the Constitution and in the true spirit of our Republic. Profiting from releasing secrets is absolutely treason. Attempting to shed light on some dark activities, AND PAYING THE PRICE FOR IT, seems closer to "conscientious objector" status in WWI... Interesting delimma

It has the opposite effect, sadly. Singing the Anthem so often waters down its meaning. Combining it with sports, to which it has no connection, confuses the issue. Before all large gatherings? Like before church, before weddings, before staff meetings, before conventions, before they open the doors at the DMV, stuff like that? That's an unnecessary conflation of the meaning and intent behind an anthem. Sure, America is central to all our lives, but so is sex, without which none of us would be here. It'd be like having a couple go at it at midfield, or on the pitcher's mound, or center court, before a sporting event starts. Sex is essential, great, and everyone likes it - but it has nothing to do with sports and shouldn't be included. We all eat, right? Let's bake cookies or make a giant pot of gumbo before every game. We all sleep, right? Let's all take a quick nap before every game. I mean... there's a lot of things we all love, and respect, and cherish. But none of those things belongs in front of a sporting event. It's not anti-sex, or anti-food, or anti-ZZZ's to say that, right? More sex & more pot for everyone. Sounds like a plan /s

Question here, as I'm not versed in this particular issue at all. So I can only go off your description. When a school fails in this competitive utopia market, loses its funds and goes under -- what happens to the students there? Is that where they will belong? Are you sure that will never be your kids? How would you prevent it? In a competitive utopia market they would not fail. But with that said...if you have ever seen what "bad" schools are like it would almost make more sense to home school if that was an option. With it also being based on competition it would, in theory, mean that more schools would open to replace the bad ones...in theory. That's a big requirement. The idea that schools can be a competitive open market assumes things like distance from the school are not a factor. For a lot of schools, having a bad principal does as much damage as lack of funding... There is an area South of me where 3 school districts have pooled together to a "choice-in" structure for middle & high school. It covers 3 different suburbs. Out of the 12 high schools participating, 2 have seen substantial improvement in student performance, 3 have stagnated, and the rest have decreased slightly to substantially. The districts are still trying to figure out why. One of the schools that dropped off the most unexpectedly lost it's principal and the replacement was not up to task. I honestly don't know the solution to improving public education but I do think this is one of the biggest challenges in this country.