Red Mosquito

bune wrote:wtf is up with Maine? White wall or something?

Longfellows

bune wrote:wtf is up with Maine? White wall or something?

I believe there's at least one county up there that does something funky with its electoral votes, like it splits them or something (dont @ me if I'm way off).

bune wrote:wtf is up with Maine? White wall or something?

have you been to maine?

new england liberal really means southeastern new england liberal

once you go west of worcester or north of the merrimack river it's a different world

That's great news for the incel motivational posters.

Incel...motivational posters? What could those possibly be?

“When at first you don’t succeed...it’s over!”

It means less kids hopefully. That and boomers dying could really help the rest of us.

Unfortunately sex starved males tend to be a problem.

For example:

Seems like a job you wouldn't want to have.

Units is my son's favorite color.

I watched all twenty minutes of this without being bored.



For all the tumult of the 20th century, it was just a blip on the radar compared to older events. This won't last.

compared to insulin:

bune wrote:

compared to insulin:

~ ~ haha - - scribbles in the textbook - - asshole college kids ~ ~

I feel like I need to see healthcare costs split out between what didn't exist X number of years ago and what did to get a better understanding of it. The further back one goes, the more I speculate that healthcare was cheaper because fewer treatments existed, and life expectancy was shorter.

College education costs, on the other hand....that I'm more convinced that there's a scam afoot.

Green Habit wrote:I feel like I need to see healthcare costs split out between what didn't exist X number of years ago and what did to get a better understanding of it. The further back one goes, the more I speculate that healthcare was cheaper because fewer treatments existed, and life expectancy was shorter.

There’s certainly some significant cost involved in new technologies (an MRI machine costs $3 million to buy, $4 million to install/house, $100,000 a year to maintain, and can require on site salaried maintenance staff for larger hospitals).

Problem with this, though, is that US health care costs are anomalous among developed countries, but neither life expectancy nor range of treatments is better (or improving faster).

McParadigm wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I feel like I need to see healthcare costs split out between what didn't exist X number of years ago and what did to get a better understanding of it. The further back one goes, the more I speculate that healthcare was cheaper because fewer treatments existed, and life expectancy was shorter.

There’s certainly some significant cost involved in new technologies (an MRI machine costs $3 million to buy, $4 million to install/house, $100,000 a year to maintain, and can require on site salaried maintenance staff for larger hospitals).

Problem with this, though, is that US health care costs are anomalous among developed countries, but neither life expectancy nor range of treatments is better (or improving faster).

This seems fair, I just see way too many people chalk it up to entirely one or the other.