Deconstruct doesn't have to refer to Derrida or post structural whatevers.
It can just mean "to disassemble or break down."
I mean we already have analyze, but that's a more positive synonym
I am not interested in fighting about my misapplying a word.
I just wanted to clarify if Podly understood what I was trying to say, or if my misusing this word was so confusing that it ruined my whole post.
If that happened, I can try to clarify.
If this is just LOL THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS U R DUMB
I have zero interest in entertaining that.
I am not defending the position of these authors (like 8 of them so far) who wrote essays about the novel being racist.
But I felt it important to say that these people didn't post essays written in crayon, these are serious academic essays that got published and peer reviewed.
I'm glad that their view isn't completely dominant (as it would seem to be from the essays that are available to me) but I that doesn't mean these people are idiots or wrote bad essays. These essays are carefully constructed, researched with way more sources than I'm going to use, and basically thoughtful.
What is the proper way to use the word 'deconstruct?'
The actually proper way?
Inverting the inherent power structure of binaries in a logocentric structure to reveal either the inherent need of the slave by the master or reveal the founding power of presence in Western thought.
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
I hope the cool "Sculpting tool" MediaMolecule showed off at the Sony Thing ends up for sale at a small price... I'd pay $5 for that, even if I can't use it to make stuff for the next LBP-ish game.
my pet suspicion is that you can't get political pressure to control costs in hospitals until you get some way to relieve hospitals of a duty to treat
Other countries seem to control costs way better than we do and don't give up the duty to treat.
because they adopted the universal duty to treat after they introduced state healthcare
moving in the opposite direction requires hospitals pushing back against being driven to bankruptcy in a difficult direction
Hospitals don't have a duty to treat in the US.
Emergency departments do, but that covers the ED only.
Emergency costs are one driver of overall healthcare costs, but they're not a primary driver.
it's ballooning admin costs, if I followed the debate correctly
The private insurance system is the cause of this.
For ever doctor doing work you need like 2 people filling out paperwork and yelling at the insurance companies to get paid.
This is why even though it pays less doctors like Medicare, because the government just pays their damn bills.
That's a big part of it, yeah.
Also the situation is, to a certain degree, similar to the situation with universities.
There's less pressure on the institutions to keep costs down because the people who benefit from services aren't the people negotiating prices.
The people who benefit from services don't have the expertise to understand what makes for better service and what does not, so they have to make decisions based on proxy factors like the quality of the food or the prettiness of the facilities. (Atomic Ross will talk your ear off about this.)
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
my pet suspicion is that you can't get political pressure to control costs in hospitals until you get some way to relieve hospitals of a duty to treat
Other countries seem to control costs way better than we do and don't give up the duty to treat.
because they adopted the universal duty to treat after they introduced state healthcare
moving in the opposite direction requires hospitals pushing back against being driven to bankruptcy in a difficult direction
Hospitals don't have a duty to treat in the US.
Emergency departments do, but that covers the ED only.
Emergency costs are one driver of overall healthcare costs, but they're not a primary driver.
it's ballooning admin costs, if I followed the debate correctly
Ballooning administrative costs and overutilization are the least controversial drivers. (But of course no two people will ever agree on what exactly constitutes "over"utilization versus appropriate utilization.)
Rising costs were masked for a little while in the 90s by insurance companies profiting more off of float via stock market investments.
Poor record-keeping and inter-provider coordination cause more medical errors, which can be ameliorated by better use of electronic health records, but the adoption of EHR usually turns out to be much more expensive in the short-run than the medical errors that it prevents, which is why Medicare is offering incentives for it.
I also firmly believe that the AMA and the AAMC are flagrantly rent-seeking by trying to keep the supply of MDs artificially low and their value artificially high, but I recognize that this is a controversial interpretation.
right but the point is that these are costs generated by institutional rent-seeking
because there are weak pressures on cost control at a managerial, rather than individual, level. hence individual staff feel pressurized and cost-constrained yet the money seems to disappear.
so the question is why there is no pressure to control costs at an institutional level, and my speculative answer is because of a duty to treat that keeps incrementally forcing budgets up; ED being the first to be cut and last to be funded.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
my pet suspicion is that you can't get political pressure to control costs in hospitals until you get some way to relieve hospitals of a duty to treat
Other countries seem to control costs way better than we do and don't give up the duty to treat.
because they adopted the universal duty to treat after they introduced state healthcare
moving in the opposite direction requires hospitals pushing back against being driven to bankruptcy in a difficult direction
Hospitals don't have a duty to treat in the US.
Emergency departments do, but that covers the ED only.
Emergency costs are one driver of overall healthcare costs, but they're not a primary driver.
it's ballooning admin costs, if I followed the debate correctly
Ballooning administrative costs and overutilization are the least controversial drivers. (But of course no two people will ever agree on what exactly constitutes "over"utilization versus appropriate utilization.)
Rising costs were masked for a little while in the 90s by insurance companies profiting more off of float via stock market investments.
Poor record-keeping and inter-provider coordination cause more medical errors, which can be ameliorated by better use of electronic health records, but the adoption of EHR usually turns out to be much more expensive in the short-run than the medical errors that it prevents, which is why Medicare is offering incentives for it.
I also firmly believe that the AMA and the AAMC are flagrantly rent-seeking by trying to keep the supply of MDs artificially low and their value artificially high, but I recognize that this is a controversial interpretation.
right but the point is that these are costs generated by institutional rent-seeking
because there are weak pressures on cost control at a managerial, rather than individual, level. hence individual staff feel pressurized and cost-constrained yet the money seems to disappear.
so the question is why there is no pressure to control costs at an institutional level, and my speculative answer is because of a duty to treat that keeps incrementally forcing budgets up; ED being the first to be cut and last to be funded.
i think that kind of dovetails with what I said above
but I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "duty to treat" in this context
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What is the proper way to use the word 'deconstruct?'
The actually proper way?
Inverting the inherent power structure of binaries in a logocentric structure to reveal either the inherent need of the slave by the master or reveal the founding power of presence in Western thought.
You forgot the important, fun part! When you invert the power structure and read thing in the "backward" way it's like reversing all of the colors in a room.
After you've destabilized that structure, you get to enjoy ping ponging back and forth between normative power dynamics, their inversion, and the wonky, wire-crossing that happens.
It was. But if you are discussing English Literary Criticism and you use the word "deconstruct" as analogous to "critique/analyze" you are adding to a big big big problem of people co-opting very specific and abstruse philosophical tools and using them willy-nillly to spew bullshit.
What is the proper way to use the word 'deconstruct?'
The actually proper way?
Inverting the inherent power structure of binaries in a logocentric structure to reveal either the inherent need of the slave by the master or reveal the founding power of presence in Western thought.
You forgot the important, fun part! When you invert the power structure and read thing in the "backward" way it's like reversing all of the colors in a room.
After you've destabilized that structure, you get to enjoy ping ponging back and forth between normative power dynamics, their inversion, and the wonky, wire-crossing that happens.
That's not the important part, and that's where my beloved Derrida gets in a lot of trouble. Yes, it is INCREDIBLY interesting and full of life and perhaps the most vibrant philosophy since Plato, but it's an auxiliary. Deconstruction is the critique of Platonic univocal logocentrism by a program of elucidating the inherence of presence in all logics and speculation.
Personally I think the per procedure model of healthcare is a shitty one that encourages overtesting, over utilization and profits over actual results.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
my pet suspicion is that you can't get political pressure to control costs in hospitals until you get some way to relieve hospitals of a duty to treat
Other countries seem to control costs way better than we do and don't give up the duty to treat.
because they adopted the universal duty to treat after they introduced state healthcare
moving in the opposite direction requires hospitals pushing back against being driven to bankruptcy in a difficult direction
Hospitals don't have a duty to treat in the US.
Emergency departments do, but that covers the ED only.
Emergency costs are one driver of overall healthcare costs, but they're not a primary driver.
it's ballooning admin costs, if I followed the debate correctly
Ballooning administrative costs and overutilization are the least controversial drivers. (But of course no two people will ever agree on what exactly constitutes "over"utilization versus appropriate utilization.)
Rising costs were masked for a little while in the 90s by insurance companies profiting more off of float via stock market investments.
Poor record-keeping and inter-provider coordination cause more medical errors, which can be ameliorated by better use of electronic health records, but the adoption of EHR usually turns out to be much more expensive in the short-run than the medical errors that it prevents, which is why Medicare is offering incentives for it.
I also firmly believe that the AMA and the AAMC are flagrantly rent-seeking by trying to keep the supply of MDs artificially low and their value artificially high, but I recognize that this is a controversial interpretation.
right but the point is that these are costs generated by institutional rent-seeking
because there are weak pressures on cost control at a managerial, rather than individual, level. hence individual staff feel pressurized and cost-constrained yet the money seems to disappear.
so the question is why there is no pressure to control costs at an institutional level, and my speculative answer is because of a duty to treat that keeps incrementally forcing budgets up; ED being the first to be cut and last to be funded.
i think that kind of dovetails with what I said above
but I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "duty to treat" in this context
You mean it's not the massive inefficiency of multiple, layered monopolies?
my pet suspicion is that you can't get political pressure to control costs in hospitals until you get some way to relieve hospitals of a duty to treat
Other countries seem to control costs way better than we do and don't give up the duty to treat.
because they adopted the universal duty to treat after they introduced state healthcare
moving in the opposite direction requires hospitals pushing back against being driven to bankruptcy in a difficult direction
Hospitals don't have a duty to treat in the US.
Emergency departments do, but that covers the ED only.
Emergency costs are one driver of overall healthcare costs, but they're not a primary driver.
it's ballooning admin costs, if I followed the debate correctly
Ballooning administrative costs and overutilization are the least controversial drivers. (But of course no two people will ever agree on what exactly constitutes "over"utilization versus appropriate utilization.)
Rising costs were masked for a little while in the 90s by insurance companies profiting more off of float via stock market investments.
Diversion of patients from low-cost primary care offices into high-cost emergency departments due to lack of health insurance is a cost driver. On an overall national scale it's not that big of a cost driver, but when looking at public expenditures specifically it's important because EDs receive a disproportionate share of public funds.
Poor record-keeping and inter-provider coordination cause more medical errors, which can be ameliorated by better use of electronic health records, but the adoption of EHR usually turns out to be much more expensive in the short-run than the medical errors that it prevents, which is why Medicare is offering incentives for it.
I also firmly believe that the AMA and the AAMC are flagrantly rent-seeking by trying to keep the supply of MDs artificially low and their value artificially high, but I recognize that this is a controversial interpretation.
Is it really controversial? I mean, I guess if you're completely ignorant.
They also rent-seek by trying to keep going to an MD as your only option. Being a GP shouldn't involve having to put on pants on most days. Most days, a GP should be able to sit at home at his computer, and just wait for calls to come in from the large group of PAs and nurses he or she consults for. But we don't want more PAs or nurses, because that would reduce the need for MDs, and would reduce the incredible amount of money they cost.
I should not need to see a fucking MD when I have an ear infection or strep throat and need some antibiotics, unless there is some sort of strange complication going on that requires more advanced knowledge.
my pet suspicion is that you can't get political pressure to control costs in hospitals until you get some way to relieve hospitals of a duty to treat
Other countries seem to control costs way better than we do and don't give up the duty to treat.
because they adopted the universal duty to treat after they introduced state healthcare
moving in the opposite direction requires hospitals pushing back against being driven to bankruptcy in a difficult direction
Hospitals don't have a duty to treat in the US.
Emergency departments do, but that covers the ED only.
Emergency costs are one driver of overall healthcare costs, but they're not a primary driver.
it's ballooning admin costs, if I followed the debate correctly
Ballooning administrative costs and overutilization are the least controversial drivers. (But of course no two people will ever agree on what exactly constitutes "over"utilization versus appropriate utilization.)
Rising costs were masked for a little while in the 90s by insurance companies profiting more off of float via stock market investments.
Poor record-keeping and inter-provider coordination cause more medical errors, which can be ameliorated by better use of electronic health records, but the adoption of EHR usually turns out to be much more expensive in the short-run than the medical errors that it prevents, which is why Medicare is offering incentives for it.
I also firmly believe that the AMA and the AAMC are flagrantly rent-seeking by trying to keep the supply of MDs artificially low and their value artificially high, but I recognize that this is a controversial interpretation.
right but the point is that these are costs generated by institutional rent-seeking
because there are weak pressures on cost control at a managerial, rather than individual, level. hence individual staff feel pressurized and cost-constrained yet the money seems to disappear.
so the question is why there is no pressure to control costs at an institutional level, and my speculative answer is because of a duty to treat that keeps incrementally forcing budgets up; ED being the first to be cut and last to be funded.
i think that kind of dovetails with what I said above
but I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "duty to treat" in this context
there's a duty to treat in ED
ED might not be the bulk of costs, but that doesn't matter - hospitals have discretion over internal allocation of budgets, so if they put ED first in line to be cut, and ED has a duty to treat, then budget control closes the hospital. that's not popular, so there is no call to control budgets
I could totally see how someone could think Huckleberry Finn was hell of racist if they didn't finish it. And it is a long book.
But all of that is just the nescessary buildup to the main character realizing how deeply shitty and racist his culture and religion and everything he had been brought up to think was good really was. That just because someone does the right and Christian thing doesn't mean they aren't terrible people.
It is worth slogging through that long, long book just for this if nothing else.
"All right, then, I'll GO to hell"--and tore it up.”
No no, these papers I'm talking about are not written by silly or stupid people.
They have very, very specific examples and opinions and they deconstruct every single moment where Huck Finn is supposedly 'doing the right thing' or having a moral crisis moment and explain why he hasn't changed a bit and is still really racist and sort of awful.
If I were allowed to write about the book like they are, these would actually be very good papers.
But the essay topics are like "discuss the symbolism of the river as it relates to social constraints."
And none of these essays care to talk about any of that, they are all interested in breaking down Huck and/or Twain's racism.
Jeep, the river isn't really about the river. The awfulness and racism is what they want you to talk about.
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Posts
I am not interested in fighting about my misapplying a word.
I just wanted to clarify if Podly understood what I was trying to say, or if my misusing this word was so confusing that it ruined my whole post.
If that happened, I can try to clarify.
If this is just LOL THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS U R DUMB
I have zero interest in entertaining that.
I am not defending the position of these authors (like 8 of them so far) who wrote essays about the novel being racist.
But I felt it important to say that these people didn't post essays written in crayon, these are serious academic essays that got published and peer reviewed.
I'm glad that their view isn't completely dominant (as it would seem to be from the essays that are available to me) but I that doesn't mean these people are idiots or wrote bad essays. These essays are carefully constructed, researched with way more sources than I'm going to use, and basically thoughtful.
Or a four word novel.
Anything really
Just something so I don't feel like such a failure, at least I'd be producing a thing
The actually proper way?
Inverting the inherent power structure of binaries in a logocentric structure to reveal either the inherent need of the slave by the master or reveal the founding power of presence in Western thought.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
That's a big part of it, yeah.
Also the situation is, to a certain degree, similar to the situation with universities.
There's less pressure on the institutions to keep costs down because the people who benefit from services aren't the people negotiating prices.
The people who benefit from services don't have the expertise to understand what makes for better service and what does not, so they have to make decisions based on proxy factors like the quality of the food or the prettiness of the facilities. (Atomic Ross will talk your ear off about this.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
right but the point is that these are costs generated by institutional rent-seeking
because there are weak pressures on cost control at a managerial, rather than individual, level. hence individual staff feel pressurized and cost-constrained yet the money seems to disappear.
so the question is why there is no pressure to control costs at an institutional level, and my speculative answer is because of a duty to treat that keeps incrementally forcing budgets up; ED being the first to be cut and last to be funded.
P sure that is the name of a Cinemax After Hours movie.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I see how it is
*gets Feral tattoo adjusted to have a big X over the thundercat logo*
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
but then id have no money
What is the proper way to use the word 'deconstruct?'
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
you're exegesis of deleuze was found wanting
It's a semi-famous women in prison sexploitation flick
directed by none other than Jonathan Demme
I want a vortex gun.
i think that kind of dovetails with what I said above
but I think I might be misunderstanding what you mean by "duty to treat" in this context
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You forgot the important, fun part! When you invert the power structure and read thing in the "backward" way it's like reversing all of the colors in a room.
After you've destabilized that structure, you get to enjoy ping ponging back and forth between normative power dynamics, their inversion, and the wonky, wire-crossing that happens.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
EVERYBODY FLEES AT THE SIGHT OF @Podly 's WANG!
As long as you could tell what I meant I'm G2G
where were you podly
That's not the important part, and that's where my beloved Derrida gets in a lot of trouble. Yes, it is INCREDIBLY interesting and full of life and perhaps the most vibrant philosophy since Plato, but it's an auxiliary. Deconstruction is the critique of Platonic univocal logocentrism by a program of elucidating the inherence of presence in all logics and speculation.
Where else do they do it?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
at least you didn't have to try hard to get nowhere
How is your job hunt going?
But I don't think I fucked that up. Too bad the guy can't really do much for me getting in >.>
You mean it's not the massive inefficiency of multiple, layered monopolies?
They also rent-seek by trying to keep going to an MD as your only option. Being a GP shouldn't involve having to put on pants on most days. Most days, a GP should be able to sit at home at his computer, and just wait for calls to come in from the large group of PAs and nurses he or she consults for. But we don't want more PAs or nurses, because that would reduce the need for MDs, and would reduce the incredible amount of money they cost.
I should not need to see a fucking MD when I have an ear infection or strep throat and need some antibiotics, unless there is some sort of strange complication going on that requires more advanced knowledge.
there's a duty to treat in ED
ED might not be the bulk of costs, but that doesn't matter - hospitals have discretion over internal allocation of budgets, so if they put ED first in line to be cut, and ED has a duty to treat, then budget control closes the hospital. that's not popular, so there is no call to control budgets
You'll find something good
in the mean time enjoy the ability to be naked all day and play vija games or something
try to relax and not get too down about it
Jeep, the river isn't really about the river. The awfulness and racism is what they want you to talk about.
you would quote structure sign play
call me when you're ready to talk Speech and Phenomena
edit* and so help me god if you come at me without having devoured the Husserl first
SO HELP ME GOD
i am le tired
we's doin it right nao
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin