15
Dec 10

Get Low Cost Lab Tests (Seriously)

Whether you have health insurance or not, lab work can get pretty expensive.  If you have insurance but still haven’t paid your deductible, the insured rates for blood tests are liable to cost hundreds of dollars depending on the work-up, and if you aren’t insured, you get screwed because you don’t even get the negotiated rate.  This CNN article outlines a new service that drastically decreases the cost of otherwise expensive lab tests.  I perused PrePaidLabs.com myself, and the claims aren’t exaggerated.  You can still rack up a bill if multiple tests are needed (again, depending on the tests), but the final price will be a fraction of what one would pay under normal circumstances.

From the article:

Here’s how it works: Patients needing lab work can go to the medical society’s website and click on the big yellow box in the middle of the page. From there they choose the tests their doctor says they need, give the doctor’s fax number, pay with a credit card and print out the order. They then take the order to any LabCorp location in 47 states and have the work done. Results are sent securely to the patient and the doctor, often within 24 hours.

Here is another snippet for purposes of comparison:

For example, a lipid panel (cholesterol test) in Lefton’s area can cost as much as $148 for an uninsured person. The same test is available for less than $18 through the site.

It’s worth popping over to CNN to get the full details on how the process works, especially for those who’ve forgone getting blood tests due to prohibitive costs.  The service isn’t available in New York, New Jersey, or Rhode Island, but for everyone else, this could be a godsend.

This article is cross-posted at They Will Rise Again from the Tundra.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

09
Dec 10

Interesting Words

procrustean (adj) -

1: of, relating to, or typical of Procrustes
2: marked by arbitrary often ruthless disregard of individual differences or special circumstances

1: a scheme or pattern into which someone or something is arbitrarily forced
Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

15
Nov 10

Donovan McNabb’s Curious Contract Extension

It’s rare that I take the time even to write a very short post dealing with sports, but I just came across news of Donovan McNabb’s five-year, $78 million extension given to him by the Washington Redskins and found myself wondering.

I’ve always been a fan of McNabb.  He’s been a solid producer throughout his career and was treated uncharitably by the fans in Philadelphia despite busting his ass as the most consistently high-performing element of the Eagles teams he helmed.  They pretty much ran him out of town on a rail and probably would have done so much sooner if it hadn’t been for coach Andy Reid’s persistence and faith in his star quarterback.  McNabb conducted himself with class through most of the criticism, which is more than I can say I would have done in his shoes considering the vitriol emanating from the Eagles’ fan base.

Regardless of all that, McNabb is thirty-three and having one of the worst seasons of his career.  Through eight games, he has a QB rating of 76.0 (seventh worst in the NFL) and has thrown more interceptions than touchdowns (eight and seven, respectively).  That doesn’t sound like it’s worth five years and $78 million to me.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

25
Oct 10

Iran Shuttles University Curricula

As a nominal democracy (keyword: nominal), Iran isn’t high on my list of desirable nations, at least not as far as the government is concerned.  Imagine my consternation as I stumbled across a report from the AP outlining Iran’s new restructuring of social sciences programs deemed as inconsistent with Islamic law (ie, derived from Western principles of thought):

The list includes law, philosophy, management, psychology, political science and the two subjects that appear to cause the most concern among Iran’s conservative leadership — women’s studies and human rights.

No new programs in the listed areas will be accepted in Iranian universities, and current programs are to be severely revised by the government.

Go figure.  Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad can’t like the fact that a cross-section of relatively well-educated young liberals drove the anti-government protests last year, and what better way to squelch dissent than to restrict access to scholastic disciplines the Supreme Leader and President view as threatening to their regime?

Say what you will about the United States (and trust me, I have a veritable slue of castigations for our own government), we will likely never see something like this happen in our country, Christine O’Donnell’s eventual rise to the presidency notwithstanding.  Then again, what a low bar to set for a nation.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

18
Oct 10

Alternative Medicine Flowchart from Crispian Jago

There isn’t much that can get a laugh out of me today so I thank Crispian Jago and his “Handy Alternative Therapy Flowchart” for a moment of welcome respite.  (I admit I originally saw it linked on Orac’s blog Respectful Insolence this morning.)

It’s important to remember that while many physical therapies (mostly forms of massage) aren’t quackery insofar as they relate to relaxation, muscle tightness, and a few other direct indications, they’re not avenues for mitigating an imagined toxicity or re-balancing non-existent energy fields within the body or even curing a multifarious slew of illnesses as they are so often espoused to do (hence, making them pure quackery for such indications).  Again, we register in grayscale, not black-and-white.

The only issue I take with Crispian’s flowchart is the issue of prayer. Prayer works, plain and simple.  I pray that it won’t rain and storm every day, and lo and behold, my prayers are answered about eighty percent of the time.  That’s a damn good success rate, and if you ask me, that other twenty percent is just the Big Man trying to keep me on my toes.

I would gladly supplant any number of proven therapies with prayer as my sole bastion against succumbing to disease.  Just look how well it’s worked so far.

(Thumb through the rest of Jago’s Science, Reason, and Critical Thinking blog.  He has some fantastic, thought-provoking work therein.)

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

08
Oct 10

Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo

From The Guardian:

China‘s best-known dissident, Liu Xiaobo, today won the Nobel peace prize from the prison cell where he is serving 11 years for incitement to subvert state power.

The announcement provoked a furious reaction from Chinese authorities, who warned that the decision would hurt relations with Norway.

This is one of those times where I think Chinese government’s reaction is totally idiotic.  By displaying outrage and saying that relations with Norway will be harmed (can anyone say “saber rattling”), China looks a child throwing a tantrum because of who was picked first to play a pick up game.

No matter how pissed off they were/are the best reaction would have been no reaction at all.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

08
Oct 10

Friday Zeitgeist: Don Boehner / John Draper

In today’s POLITICO Playbook Mike Allen writes about John Boehner, one of the GOP’s many front man now-a-days, and compares him to Mad Men‘s Don Draper.

File:John Boehner official portrait.jpg

Granted, they do look somewhat alike, but other than this [literal] surface similarity I don’t see that comparison as being very apt.  But then again, what the fuck do I know?

What I find interesting about the comparison is that Boehner is being compared to Draper and not the other way around.

Nonetheless, I belive that this is another example of how Don Draper has become Zeitgeist.

(For the record: I don’t think that Boehner is Zeitgeist at all.  I see him as a sort of anti-Zeitgeist.  Seriously.)

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

05
Oct 10

The Political Spectrum Pt. 1

I’m a history / civics teacher, and I’m really into data visualization.  So as I was preparing for a class, where my goal was to explain the shift in political idology which took place in Germany prior to World War II, I was looking for a good visual example and/or representation of the political spectrum.

I found some really great stuff that I thought I’d share with anyone who happens to read this blog.

1. A great text breakdown from the public domain.   (I know it can’t be read below.  Click on the image and you will see the full -readable- version.)

via: Chicago Indy Media

2. A very good at-a-glance chart

via: cyberlearning-world.com

via: cyberlearning-world.com

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

03
Oct 10

Bob Dylan’s 2nd Bad Dream: “They Killed Him”

Bob Dylan is my favorite singer/songwriter.  Original, I know, and I’ll spare you the diatribe about his greatness as his standing among the 20thcentury’s greatest performers and personas is well established.  He is immortal as far as the history of music is concerned and bears responsibility for some of the best musical and lyrical offerings ever produced.  That being said, Dylan’s undertakings became more mercurial as his career went on, and in addition to having written some of the most powerful and groundbreaking songs of his generation (or ever), he may also have lashed together some of the worst I’ve ever heard.  This ongoing series entitled Bob Dylan’s Bad Dreams seeks to bring those forgotten anti-classics into full view with naught but love and admiration.  The idea is to keep this list going on a semi-regular basis until I run out of things to say.

Album: Knocked Out Loaded (1986)
Link: Lyrics/Audio

“They Killed Him” has to be right up there with “Man Gave Names to All the Animals” for the worst Bob Dylan song of all time, and the only thing that prevents me from awarding it the title outright is the fact that it’s a cover of a Kris Kristofferson song.  I’ve never heard Kristofferson’s version so I can’t comment as to the original’s integrity.  Even so, Dylan must bear some of the blame for picking a song with such trite lyrics for an album that bears his own name.

Chronicling the plights of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus Christ, the song opens with a laughably elementary horn melody and lauds each character for standing up for the rights of the afflicted and then gasps in disbelief at their untimely ends with a group of Gospel singers piping up “My God, they killed him”.

Calling this an exceptionally bad song isn’t meant to in any way discredit the works of Ghandi or King, mind you.  Both were indelible figureheads for civil rights and great men in their own respects  (same for Jesus Christ but fictitiously so), and perhaps both Kristofferson and Dylan could be forgiven for falling without restraint into mawkishness.  After all, the assassinations in question are certainly among the most depressing when one looks back at the fight for humanitarian rights in the twentieth century, but Dylan takes a hit for the bridge in which he enlists a children’s chorus to provide a monotonous song its sentimental hook.  There is hardly a more insulting move than this.  The Rolling Stones did it with “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” but there was a strange irony that somehow managed to forgive the move.  Here, Dylan is clearly getting his rocks off acting as Messenger.

I’ve never had a problem with Dylan’s voice, whatever the iteration, from the talky vocals during his folk years, to the frog-throated warble of his country years, or even the croaking he began to employ with advancing age.  It was the luminary David Byrne who said, “The better the singer, the harder it is to believe what he’s saying.”  But Dylan’s nasally whine on “They Killed Him” makes him sound like a man who’s given up, and it’s difficult to believe this is the same musician that wrote “Highway 61 Revisited” or “Subterranean Homesick Blues”.

So let’s take a quick inventory: bad horns, bad Gospel choir, bad children’s choir, self-righteous/mawkish front man.

What did the Eighties do to Bob Dylan?  My God, they killed him (temporarily).

This article is cross-posted at They Will Rise Again from the Tundra.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email

24
Sep 10

The Queen: She’s a People Person

Portrait of The Queen, taken in 2002 © John Swannell/Camera Press

That the Queen of England isn’t anything more than a figurehead by charitable estimations and by uncharitable ones a massive ongoing drain on the UK budget isn’t news.  We all know it.  The Brits know it, and apparently, even the staff writers for The Official Website of the British Monarchy know it.

I call specific attention to their webpage entitled “The Role of the Sovereign” in which a lengthy explanation almost entirely devoid of specifics succeeds in making no legitimate justification for the monarchy’s continued existence.  Please read it.  The vagaries and appeals to “national unity and pride” sound like they were lifted from an eighth grader’s Social Studies paper and not a very good one at that:

The Queen also has an essential role in providing a sense of stability and continuity in times of political and social change. The system of constitutional monarchy bridges the discontinuity of party politics.

How exactly does the constitutional monarchy bridge this gap?  By what real-world power or political relevance does the Queen wield this ability?

Here is another one:

These include: providing a focus for national identity, unity and pride; giving a sense of stability and continuity; recognising success, achievement and excellence; and supporting service to others, particularly through public service and the voluntary sector.

That’s also pretty flimsy if you ask me, and you could make a pretty effective drinking game out of counting the number of times “national unity”, “stability”, and “providing a focus” appear on the page.  This particular passage essentially states the Queen is in charge of intangibles and utilizes what I’m going to call the Smykowski Defense from Office Space.  To paraphrase, she deals with the goddamn customers.

I know the Queen is running out of money, but you would have thought she’d have enough in her coffers to hire a competent bullshit artist for the website.

Monarchy fail.

Share this with other foolish humans:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Posterous
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Slashdot
  • email