I've known for my entire adult life that urinals aren't in stalls, but I never realized how open they are until I saw this scene in Big Bang Theory:
That's no good at all for if you're a shy pee-er, or if the need is less urgent (but you want to go before leaving on a long commute, for example) so it takes some time to get started. Other people are right there and can see you and look you in the eye. But if you're in a stall, all other people can see is that there's someone in the stall. You have more privacy, and, if you're shy, you can just close your eyes and ears and shut out the world.
Given the number of men in fields like architecture and construction and plumbing, I'm surprised no one has put urinals in proper stalls yet. And it also surprises me that men continue to use open urinals when stalls (i.e. with toilets) are available.
Can anyone shed light onto why people still choose to use urinals?
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Saturday, March 10, 2012
I do not recommend Folger's Simply Smooth coffee for cold brewing
Folger's Simply Smooth coffee claims to be easier on your stomach than regular coffee. I can't tell you whether it is or is not because my symptoms are silent. However, I can tell you that it doesn't work well if you're cold-brewing your coffee. The result is practically flavourless, with no redeeming qualities except that it's warm and caffeinated. It has even less flavour than a cold brew of store brand "mellow blend" coffee from the bottom of a big can that was opened over a month previous.
Of course, this is probably because this coffee wasn't intended for cold brewing. Like most coffees, the instructions on the can are for hot brewing. I haven't tried hot brewing it myself so I can't tell you how it tastes when prepared as recommended. (It would be an interesting experiment for someone who can feel their symptoms to see if hot-brewed Simply Smooth or cold-brewed regular coffee is easier on the digestive system.)
However, if, like many people with stomach-related ailments, you are cold-brewing your coffee because that makes it less acidic, I do not recommend using Folger's Simply Smooth. And if, like the target audience for this product, you are using Folger's Simply Smooth because it's meant to be easier on your stomach, I do not recommend cold-brewing it.
Of course, this is probably because this coffee wasn't intended for cold brewing. Like most coffees, the instructions on the can are for hot brewing. I haven't tried hot brewing it myself so I can't tell you how it tastes when prepared as recommended. (It would be an interesting experiment for someone who can feel their symptoms to see if hot-brewed Simply Smooth or cold-brewed regular coffee is easier on the digestive system.)
However, if, like many people with stomach-related ailments, you are cold-brewing your coffee because that makes it less acidic, I do not recommend using Folger's Simply Smooth. And if, like the target audience for this product, you are using Folger's Simply Smooth because it's meant to be easier on your stomach, I do not recommend cold-brewing it.
Thursday, March 08, 2012
Why didn't menstrual synchronicity evolve out of existence?
I have experienced menstrual synchronicity myself (with my sister, with my cohort in university, with co-workers), although I have no way of telling if it was coincidence or not. However, it occurs to me that evolution should kill menstrual synchronicity.
If every female in the group is menstruating at the same time, that means they're also all fertile at the same time. Which means that, outside of that one fertile window, any sex that is had in the entire group is wasted (from a survival-of-the-species point of view - qualify everything I say in this blog post with "from a survival-of-the-species point of view"). And if the male-female ratio is such that not all females can get all the sex necessary to become pregnant during the fertile window, a whole menstrual cycle is wasted.
But if there's a female who isn't synchronized with the rest of the group, she can get pregnant when no one else can. If males are at a premium (especially given the trends observed in our primate ancestor of females being more inclined to mate while fertile and males being more attracted to fertile females), she has her pick of all the males during her fertile window, as opposed to having to share with the rest of the group, thus increasing her chances of becoming pregnant
Even if there is no evolutionary disadvantage to synchronicity, it seems like there is a bit of an advantage to asynchronicity.
Of course, there's also the fact that, for most of evolutionary history, human and primate females spent most of their time either pregnant or lactating, and therefore unable to become pregnant anyway, which makes the impact of menstrual synchronicity or asynchronicity seem tiny. But, on the other hand, evolution has taken places over millions and millions of years. And millions and millions of tiny impacts can add up to something significant.
If every female in the group is menstruating at the same time, that means they're also all fertile at the same time. Which means that, outside of that one fertile window, any sex that is had in the entire group is wasted (from a survival-of-the-species point of view - qualify everything I say in this blog post with "from a survival-of-the-species point of view"). And if the male-female ratio is such that not all females can get all the sex necessary to become pregnant during the fertile window, a whole menstrual cycle is wasted.
But if there's a female who isn't synchronized with the rest of the group, she can get pregnant when no one else can. If males are at a premium (especially given the trends observed in our primate ancestor of females being more inclined to mate while fertile and males being more attracted to fertile females), she has her pick of all the males during her fertile window, as opposed to having to share with the rest of the group, thus increasing her chances of becoming pregnant
Even if there is no evolutionary disadvantage to synchronicity, it seems like there is a bit of an advantage to asynchronicity.
Of course, there's also the fact that, for most of evolutionary history, human and primate females spent most of their time either pregnant or lactating, and therefore unable to become pregnant anyway, which makes the impact of menstrual synchronicity or asynchronicity seem tiny. But, on the other hand, evolution has taken places over millions and millions of years. And millions and millions of tiny impacts can add up to something significant.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Buying happiness: attractive exercise clothes
Since I only ever exercise at home where no one can see me, I've always worn truly awful clothes. The sports bras were nearly 10 years old, the clothes themselves were somewhere between 15 and 20 years old, and they had no redeeming qualities except that they're cotton and light and comfortable. They were horrible enough that if, while exercising, I had ever found myself in a situation where a fire alarm rang or I had to call an ambulance, I would have changed clothes into something that at least acknowledged that the 1980s had turned into the 1990s before saving my life. After reading about some emergency or another where people had to flee their apartment building with nothing but the clothes on their backs, I had actually worried about how humiliating it would be if I were stuck in my exercise clothes.
Just recently, on top of all those aesthetic problems, elastics started dying. I was crossing my arms under my breasts and tugging my pants up. So I finally decided to splurge on new exercise clothes.
I got Secrets From Your Sister to fit me with an exercise bra which doesn't let anything move (while still giving me a decent line) and is a very fun shade of purple. And I got a simple black and charcoal yoga outfit with lines that flatter my figure. Even though I shopped well and got everything at significant discounts, that's still about $100 spent on clothes for something I hate.
What I didn't expect is how good these clothes make me feel. I look like I'm aware that the 21st century has started! I look like I have a waist! And a figure! If I were interrupted without a chance to change clothes, I'd look like a perfectly competent, fashion-aware person who happens to have been interrupted while exercising. And, underneath it all, a fun purple bra!
Attractive exercise clothes don't help the tedium or sheer hatefulness of exercise, but they do help mitigate the indignity of it all. My morning feeling of "Blah, ugh, I have to go exercise!" is now accompanied by a tiny little glimmer of "But I get to wear my purple bra!" While it doesn't make the process pleasant, it does make it less unpleasant.
If, like me, you feel utterly disgusting and hideous while exercise, I do recommend getting something attractive and flattering to wear. It does help, more than I would have expected.
Just recently, on top of all those aesthetic problems, elastics started dying. I was crossing my arms under my breasts and tugging my pants up. So I finally decided to splurge on new exercise clothes.
I got Secrets From Your Sister to fit me with an exercise bra which doesn't let anything move (while still giving me a decent line) and is a very fun shade of purple. And I got a simple black and charcoal yoga outfit with lines that flatter my figure. Even though I shopped well and got everything at significant discounts, that's still about $100 spent on clothes for something I hate.
What I didn't expect is how good these clothes make me feel. I look like I'm aware that the 21st century has started! I look like I have a waist! And a figure! If I were interrupted without a chance to change clothes, I'd look like a perfectly competent, fashion-aware person who happens to have been interrupted while exercising. And, underneath it all, a fun purple bra!
Attractive exercise clothes don't help the tedium or sheer hatefulness of exercise, but they do help mitigate the indignity of it all. My morning feeling of "Blah, ugh, I have to go exercise!" is now accompanied by a tiny little glimmer of "But I get to wear my purple bra!" While it doesn't make the process pleasant, it does make it less unpleasant.
If, like me, you feel utterly disgusting and hideous while exercise, I do recommend getting something attractive and flattering to wear. It does help, more than I would have expected.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
What if you could join other people's pension plans?
Given the trend away from defined-benefit pension plans and the resentment by some people who don't have defined-benefit plans to those who do, I wonder if it would be possible to create a mechanism for anyone to join any existing pension plan.
Outside members would pay in however much they wanted to (and perhaps could use the contributions from their defined-contribution plans), and get returns commensurate with those contributions on the same scale as employee members. They'd be charged a management fee for this (akin to mutual funds), which would cover the cost of administering their membership plus a small profit. The employer would not pay anything towards the outside members, of course, they'd just be along for the ride.
Here's an example of how it would work, using numbers that make the math easy and don't reflect the ratios of actual pension plans:
An employee of Acme Inc. who earns $50,000 a year contributes $5,000 a year to the pension plan and the employer also contributes $5,000 a year to the pension plan, for a total of $10,000 in contributions a year. The employee then gets a pension of $1,000 a year for each year of service when they turn 65. So if they have 35 years of service, they get a pension of $35,000 a year.
If an outsider joins the Acme Inc. pension plan and contributes $10,000 a year for 35 years (plus the management fee), they'll also get a pension of $35,000 a year when they turn 65. If they choose to contribute only the $5,000 that the employee would be paying in, they'd get a pension of $17,500. If they choose to contribute $20,000, they'd get a pension of $70,000.
Possible variations: employees can also choose to pay more in and get a bigger benefit. So if the employee in the first example chooses to pay in $10,000 instead of $5,000, the employer would still pay in the same $5,000 for a total contribution of $15,000, and, after 35 years, a pension of $52,500.
This would be advantageous for everyone who doesn't have a defined benefit pension plan, because they could buy into a professionally-managed pension plan instead of having to figure out how to manage their retirement planning themselves.
It has the potential to be slightly advantageous for the employees, because they have more money being paid into their pension plan, plus they have outsiders who are now invested in not cutting back their pension plan. If they're public sector, they also have the advantage of less resentment from the public, because anyone can just join in.
It has the potential to be slightly advantageous for the employer, because they would be making a small additional profit from the management fees. In addition, people would be more likely to seek out pension stability during difficult economic times, and work tends to slow down during difficult economic times, so the employer would get this extra income (and a bit of extra work processing applications for its employees) when things slow down. The employer would also be seen to be providing a valuable public service and could probably swing some tax writeoffs from their pension management expenditures (if there isn't already some provision for that, it seems like the sort of thing that would be implemented shortly after joining other pensions became possible.)
It would be advantageous for the plan itself, since there are more investment opportunities and better rates if you have more money to invest.
It would be advantageous for employees who are downsized from the employer, since they'd have the option to keep building up their pension even if they can't find equally pensionable work.
And it would be advantageous for all workers everywhere, because it would lessen the idea (among those very loud people who have this idea) that providing a defined-benefit pension is wasteful and irrational, and call the bluff of people who think that it shouldn't be provided to some workers because it isn't provided to all workers.
Potential pitfall: it might dissuade employers from providing new defined benefit plans.
Potential mitigation: a) Is anyone even providing new defined benefit plans? b) Would it matter if you could just buy into an existing plan?
Potential pitfall: Would it give outsiders control over the plan? I've read that some employers won't let the employee proportion of the contributions exceed 50% (even when they employees offer to pay more to keep the plan afloat, the employer says no) because that would mean they'd have to turn control of the plan over to the employees.
Potential solution: Outsiders sign a contract saying they don't get a share of control over the plan, they're just along for the ride.
Outside members would pay in however much they wanted to (and perhaps could use the contributions from their defined-contribution plans), and get returns commensurate with those contributions on the same scale as employee members. They'd be charged a management fee for this (akin to mutual funds), which would cover the cost of administering their membership plus a small profit. The employer would not pay anything towards the outside members, of course, they'd just be along for the ride.
Here's an example of how it would work, using numbers that make the math easy and don't reflect the ratios of actual pension plans:
An employee of Acme Inc. who earns $50,000 a year contributes $5,000 a year to the pension plan and the employer also contributes $5,000 a year to the pension plan, for a total of $10,000 in contributions a year. The employee then gets a pension of $1,000 a year for each year of service when they turn 65. So if they have 35 years of service, they get a pension of $35,000 a year.
If an outsider joins the Acme Inc. pension plan and contributes $10,000 a year for 35 years (plus the management fee), they'll also get a pension of $35,000 a year when they turn 65. If they choose to contribute only the $5,000 that the employee would be paying in, they'd get a pension of $17,500. If they choose to contribute $20,000, they'd get a pension of $70,000.
Possible variations: employees can also choose to pay more in and get a bigger benefit. So if the employee in the first example chooses to pay in $10,000 instead of $5,000, the employer would still pay in the same $5,000 for a total contribution of $15,000, and, after 35 years, a pension of $52,500.
This would be advantageous for everyone who doesn't have a defined benefit pension plan, because they could buy into a professionally-managed pension plan instead of having to figure out how to manage their retirement planning themselves.
It has the potential to be slightly advantageous for the employees, because they have more money being paid into their pension plan, plus they have outsiders who are now invested in not cutting back their pension plan. If they're public sector, they also have the advantage of less resentment from the public, because anyone can just join in.
It has the potential to be slightly advantageous for the employer, because they would be making a small additional profit from the management fees. In addition, people would be more likely to seek out pension stability during difficult economic times, and work tends to slow down during difficult economic times, so the employer would get this extra income (and a bit of extra work processing applications for its employees) when things slow down. The employer would also be seen to be providing a valuable public service and could probably swing some tax writeoffs from their pension management expenditures (if there isn't already some provision for that, it seems like the sort of thing that would be implemented shortly after joining other pensions became possible.)
It would be advantageous for the plan itself, since there are more investment opportunities and better rates if you have more money to invest.
It would be advantageous for employees who are downsized from the employer, since they'd have the option to keep building up their pension even if they can't find equally pensionable work.
And it would be advantageous for all workers everywhere, because it would lessen the idea (among those very loud people who have this idea) that providing a defined-benefit pension is wasteful and irrational, and call the bluff of people who think that it shouldn't be provided to some workers because it isn't provided to all workers.
Potential pitfall: it might dissuade employers from providing new defined benefit plans.
Potential mitigation: a) Is anyone even providing new defined benefit plans? b) Would it matter if you could just buy into an existing plan?
Potential pitfall: Would it give outsiders control over the plan? I've read that some employers won't let the employee proportion of the contributions exceed 50% (even when they employees offer to pay more to keep the plan afloat, the employer says no) because that would mean they'd have to turn control of the plan over to the employees.
Potential solution: Outsiders sign a contract saying they don't get a share of control over the plan, they're just along for the ride.
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Canada Post Comparison Shopper
A very useful tool that I've discovered recently is the Canada Post Comparison Shopper. If you're looking to buy a product online, it searches a large number of Canadian and US online stores to see who sells the product and ships to Canada. It's very useful for many reasons:
1. You get the results for all the stores on one page, so you don't have to google a bunch of different sellers to find who has the best price.
2. It gives you prices in Canadian dollars, with shipping, handling, and duty fees. No more having to make a cart to see what the actual cost is!
3. It can outdo Google! It often finds retailers who don't turn up on the first page or two of a cursory google, and undersell those who do.
4. All these sellers ship by Canada Post, which, as we all know, is far more convenient than private couriers.
I don't believe the Canada Post Comparison Shopper searches eBay, but it does sometimes have better deals than eBay. It also doesn't appear to search Overstock.com, and there may well be other common and credible retailers that it doesn't search either. But it's certainly worth taking 10 seconds to see if the Comparison Shopper can do better than your usual sources.
1. You get the results for all the stores on one page, so you don't have to google a bunch of different sellers to find who has the best price.
2. It gives you prices in Canadian dollars, with shipping, handling, and duty fees. No more having to make a cart to see what the actual cost is!
3. It can outdo Google! It often finds retailers who don't turn up on the first page or two of a cursory google, and undersell those who do.
4. All these sellers ship by Canada Post, which, as we all know, is far more convenient than private couriers.
I don't believe the Canada Post Comparison Shopper searches eBay, but it does sometimes have better deals than eBay. It also doesn't appear to search Overstock.com, and there may well be other common and credible retailers that it doesn't search either. But it's certainly worth taking 10 seconds to see if the Comparison Shopper can do better than your usual sources.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Things They Should Invent: improvement-only program and policy reviews
When a government announces it's going to "review" a program or policy, it most often means they're looking for places to cut funding.
I think that's limiting. They should also be reviewing not just for efficiencies, but for effectiveness. How could the program or policy fulfill its intended purpose better? They should be required to review everything through this lens at regular intervals, as a completely separate process from efficiency reviews. No looking at saving money, just looking at how the program could be better. Then they could issue reports, and interesting stuff would gain media attention and, if it's popular with the public, public support.
For example, parental leave could fulfill its mandate most effectively by providing 100% parental leave benefits, which would nearly double the cost of the program. It could also fulfill its mandate more effectively than it is now by offering the option of compressed parental leave, which would have little impact on the cost. This probably wouldn't come up in an efficiency review, but it would be a significant way to improve the effectiveness of the program.
This could also help win over the "Yes, but..." vote. If politicos know that a program is going to be subject to an effectiveness review, they might be willing to vote in a program that's better than the status quo but not as good as it could be, because there's a mechanism to help it get as good as it could be.
How many sub-par programs and policies are we subjected to because there's no apparatus for "How can we make this better?", only "How can we make this cheaper?"
I think that's limiting. They should also be reviewing not just for efficiencies, but for effectiveness. How could the program or policy fulfill its intended purpose better? They should be required to review everything through this lens at regular intervals, as a completely separate process from efficiency reviews. No looking at saving money, just looking at how the program could be better. Then they could issue reports, and interesting stuff would gain media attention and, if it's popular with the public, public support.
For example, parental leave could fulfill its mandate most effectively by providing 100% parental leave benefits, which would nearly double the cost of the program. It could also fulfill its mandate more effectively than it is now by offering the option of compressed parental leave, which would have little impact on the cost. This probably wouldn't come up in an efficiency review, but it would be a significant way to improve the effectiveness of the program.
This could also help win over the "Yes, but..." vote. If politicos know that a program is going to be subject to an effectiveness review, they might be willing to vote in a program that's better than the status quo but not as good as it could be, because there's a mechanism to help it get as good as it could be.
How many sub-par programs and policies are we subjected to because there's no apparatus for "How can we make this better?", only "How can we make this cheaper?"
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Does forcing children to give to charity really make them grow up to be charitable?
There's a parenting technique where people force their children to give to charity in an attempt to teach them the value of charity. For example, they might require the kid to put aside a certain portion of their allowance for charitable donations, or they might make a rule that the kid isn't allowed to get presents at their birthday party and instead the guests should make a contribution to a charity.
I wonder if this actually makes the kids grow up to be charitable?
Any attempts my parents made to force me into charitable behaviour just made me resentful. The one with the strongest emotional impact was one time when my parents decided we needed to donate a toy to a xmas toy drive. The toy drive collection was at the credit union, so they drove us and the toy there and then told me and my sister to put the toy in the collection box. All the credit union ladies watched us and went "Awwww!" I had no idea why they were doing this, but it made me feel objectified and humiliated (although I didn't know those words yet.) It also made me wary of any parent-instigated attempts at charitable donations, because I felt (although I couldn't articulate this yet) that my parents actually wanted me to do it so that they could be smug (although I didn't know the word yet) that their children are being charitable. This was also a strong contributing factor to my current practice of only donating anonymously.
I wonder how it worked out for other people. Did your parents try to force you to be charitable? Did it work? Did anything else they did end up actually making your charitable?
I wonder if this actually makes the kids grow up to be charitable?
Any attempts my parents made to force me into charitable behaviour just made me resentful. The one with the strongest emotional impact was one time when my parents decided we needed to donate a toy to a xmas toy drive. The toy drive collection was at the credit union, so they drove us and the toy there and then told me and my sister to put the toy in the collection box. All the credit union ladies watched us and went "Awwww!" I had no idea why they were doing this, but it made me feel objectified and humiliated (although I didn't know those words yet.) It also made me wary of any parent-instigated attempts at charitable donations, because I felt (although I couldn't articulate this yet) that my parents actually wanted me to do it so that they could be smug (although I didn't know the word yet) that their children are being charitable. This was also a strong contributing factor to my current practice of only donating anonymously.
I wonder how it worked out for other people. Did your parents try to force you to be charitable? Did it work? Did anything else they did end up actually making your charitable?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Things They Should Invent: substitute MPs
This post was inspired by two things. First, the by-election for the late Jack Layton's riding is on March 19, 2012, which is nearly 7 months after Mr. Layton's death on August 22, 2011. This means the people of Toronto-Danforth have gone without representation for 7 months.
Second, there was a brief bit of an issue where a plot point was that MP Sana Hassainia had her three-month-old baby with her in the House of Commons. The fact that she's working when her baby is three months old must mean that she doesn't get much, if any, maternity or parental leave, likely because it wouldn't be fair to ask the people of Verchères–Les Patriotes to go a year without representation. But, at the same time, the vagaries of life such as childbirth and illness happen to everyone, and MPs deserve some leeway when it does happen, just like any other worker.
Solution: substitute MPs who can step in when an MP needs to take extended leave for whatever reason, and represent the constituency while waiting for by-elections.
Here are a few ideas to serve as a starting point:
- The substitute MP would be appointed by the party of the sitting MP. If it's a by-election situation, the substitute MP would not be permitted to run in that by-election or campaign for the party's by-election candidate. (They are, of course, welcome to run in future elections).
- The substitute MP's primary mandate is constituency work, and they are to be as productive and pro-active in this area as possible.
- Substitutes would still vote in the House of Commons. In general, substitutes would have to vote in accordance with the party line, but there would be specific, quantitative procedures to allow them to break from party line when the majority of their constituents want them to do so. (Possible variation: the quantitative thresholds for breaking with the party line could vary based on the percentage of votes won by the sitting MP.)
- Substitutes are not permitted to be party leaders, ministers, or critics. If the MP they are replacing held any of these roles, the roles must be passed on to another elected MP on an interim basis.
- If an MP crosses the floor, a by-election is called and in the interim a substitute is appointed from the party to which the MP belonged when they were elected. This would accommodate the needs of voters who vote by party while still permitting constituents to re-elect the floor-crossing MP if they choose, in full knowledge of their party affiliations.
- Some provision needs to be made for substitutes for independent MPs, but I don't have any specific ideas at the moment. I have no particular objection to the independent MP simply appointing their own substitute, but it would be nice to have more of a safety net than just one person asking around until they can find someone able and willing.
Second, there was a brief bit of an issue where a plot point was that MP Sana Hassainia had her three-month-old baby with her in the House of Commons. The fact that she's working when her baby is three months old must mean that she doesn't get much, if any, maternity or parental leave, likely because it wouldn't be fair to ask the people of Verchères–Les Patriotes to go a year without representation. But, at the same time, the vagaries of life such as childbirth and illness happen to everyone, and MPs deserve some leeway when it does happen, just like any other worker.
Solution: substitute MPs who can step in when an MP needs to take extended leave for whatever reason, and represent the constituency while waiting for by-elections.
Here are a few ideas to serve as a starting point:
- The substitute MP would be appointed by the party of the sitting MP. If it's a by-election situation, the substitute MP would not be permitted to run in that by-election or campaign for the party's by-election candidate. (They are, of course, welcome to run in future elections).
- The substitute MP's primary mandate is constituency work, and they are to be as productive and pro-active in this area as possible.
- Substitutes would still vote in the House of Commons. In general, substitutes would have to vote in accordance with the party line, but there would be specific, quantitative procedures to allow them to break from party line when the majority of their constituents want them to do so. (Possible variation: the quantitative thresholds for breaking with the party line could vary based on the percentage of votes won by the sitting MP.)
- Substitutes are not permitted to be party leaders, ministers, or critics. If the MP they are replacing held any of these roles, the roles must be passed on to another elected MP on an interim basis.
- If an MP crosses the floor, a by-election is called and in the interim a substitute is appointed from the party to which the MP belonged when they were elected. This would accommodate the needs of voters who vote by party while still permitting constituents to re-elect the floor-crossing MP if they choose, in full knowledge of their party affiliations.
- Some provision needs to be made for substitutes for independent MPs, but I don't have any specific ideas at the moment. I have no particular objection to the independent MP simply appointing their own substitute, but it would be nice to have more of a safety net than just one person asking around until they can find someone able and willing.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Journalism wanted: why are sitting politicians allowed editorial platforms in commercial media?
With the news that the Ford brothers have a radio show, I'm reminded of something I meant to blog but never got around to months ago when Josh Matlow (my city councillor) had a newspaper column and, later, a radio show:
Why are sitting politicians allowed to write newspaper columns and host media shows? My gut feeling is that it should be some kind of conflict of interest, but I can't quite explain why I think it should be. The newspaper column seems less objectionable to me because they have more control over the topic and can keep it from straying into unethical areas, but again this is purely a gut feeling.
If they get paid by the media outlet (I don't know if they do or not - I asked Josh Matlow but haven't received an answer yet) [Update March 3: I have received a response saying he did neither received payment for the show nor paid for the airtime], then it seems like it would be a conflict of interest for a politician to be on a media outlet's payroll, just like it would be a conflict of interest for a sitting politician to be on any outside body's payroll. It also seems kind of wrong that a politician would promote a media outlet (which they will end up doing in the course of the completely reasonable act of telling their twitter followers "Hey, I'll be on the radio in this place and time"), but they'd be doing the same thing if they were the interviewee instead of the host and that doesn't seem as wrong to me. There's also the question of the advertisers for the radio show. What if one of the advertisers is something that it's inappropriate for a politician to be endorsing?
Of course, despite my gut feeling that this is wrong, it's probably perfectly permissible. It's so high-profile that if it were wrong, someone authoritative would have stopped it, or at least loudly announced it.
So I'd like to see someone write an article explaining to us ordinary citizens why sitting politicians are allowed the additional platform of hosting radio shows and writing newspaper columns. Since journalists for reputable news outlets would be trained in media ethics they already know the answer to this question, so it's an easy article, little research needed, just type it up and you'll have done a public service.
Why are sitting politicians allowed to write newspaper columns and host media shows? My gut feeling is that it should be some kind of conflict of interest, but I can't quite explain why I think it should be. The newspaper column seems less objectionable to me because they have more control over the topic and can keep it from straying into unethical areas, but again this is purely a gut feeling.
If they get paid by the media outlet (I don't know if they do or not - I asked Josh Matlow but haven't received an answer yet) [Update March 3: I have received a response saying he did neither received payment for the show nor paid for the airtime], then it seems like it would be a conflict of interest for a politician to be on a media outlet's payroll, just like it would be a conflict of interest for a sitting politician to be on any outside body's payroll. It also seems kind of wrong that a politician would promote a media outlet (which they will end up doing in the course of the completely reasonable act of telling their twitter followers "Hey, I'll be on the radio in this place and time"), but they'd be doing the same thing if they were the interviewee instead of the host and that doesn't seem as wrong to me. There's also the question of the advertisers for the radio show. What if one of the advertisers is something that it's inappropriate for a politician to be endorsing?
Of course, despite my gut feeling that this is wrong, it's probably perfectly permissible. It's so high-profile that if it were wrong, someone authoritative would have stopped it, or at least loudly announced it.
So I'd like to see someone write an article explaining to us ordinary citizens why sitting politicians are allowed the additional platform of hosting radio shows and writing newspaper columns. Since journalists for reputable news outlets would be trained in media ethics they already know the answer to this question, so it's an easy article, little research needed, just type it up and you'll have done a public service.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Things They Should Invent: customized crudités
The problem with eating veggies and salads is all the chopping up and washing you have to do. Grocery stores are addressing this by selling pre-made salads and packages of crudités. But the problem is that they don't always contain what you want. For example, I love cucumber slices, but you can't just buy a thing of cucumber slices. The cucumber slices come in a thing with carrots, celery, broccoli, cauliflower, and sometimes dip. I don't mind carrots and celery, I prefer my broccoli cooked, I'm not fond of cauliflower, and I'm not actively seeking dip. So there's less yummy (and more calories) than the thing I want.
But what if you could order them customized? Fill out a form on the grocery store's website telling them what you want, and you can pick it up within a certain timeframe. The price will reflect the ingredients you've chosen.
At first glance this sounds like it might be more expensive, but I think it would actually be cheaper for the store. The current business model is the store guesses what people will want, puts it out on the shelf as prepared food or in the salad bar as separate ingredients, and hopes everything will be bought. If they aren't bought, the store has to throw them out. But if they're custom-made, then the store knows that they're wanted, so there's a better preparation-to-sales ratio and less waste. The stores already have workers who prepare the prepared food and a pricing model that takes into account workers' salaries and revenues from less than 100% of the food being sold. It seems like they could expand to customization at no increased expense to the customer and a slightly greater profit margin.
But what if you could order them customized? Fill out a form on the grocery store's website telling them what you want, and you can pick it up within a certain timeframe. The price will reflect the ingredients you've chosen.
At first glance this sounds like it might be more expensive, but I think it would actually be cheaper for the store. The current business model is the store guesses what people will want, puts it out on the shelf as prepared food or in the salad bar as separate ingredients, and hopes everything will be bought. If they aren't bought, the store has to throw them out. But if they're custom-made, then the store knows that they're wanted, so there's a better preparation-to-sales ratio and less waste. The stores already have workers who prepare the prepared food and a pricing model that takes into account workers' salaries and revenues from less than 100% of the food being sold. It seems like they could expand to customization at no increased expense to the customer and a slightly greater profit margin.
Will the baby boomers stand up for their children or throw us under the bus?
With the recent announcement that changes to the OAS won't be implemented until 2020, the burden is being passed from the baby boomers (whose demographic weight is cited as the cause of this alleged crisis) to their children.
Apart from the question of advisability (if the problem is the proportion of the population receiving OAS, this proportion will have shrunk by or shortly after 2020), I wonder if the baby boomers will object to or embrace policy that makes life harder for their children.
In general, people want a better life for their children - or at least not a worse life. No one cradles their brand new baby, all bundled up in a blanket and wearing an itty bitty hat, gazes adoringly into that scrunched up and confused little face and says "Look at you! You're going to have to work multiple jobs at once in constant contract hell until you're 80 just to scrape by, yes you are!" On top of that, the baby boomers tend to be more protective of their children than previous generations - this is, after all, the generation that invented helicopter parenting. On that basis, they sound like people who might object to policy that will worsen their children's quality of life.
On the other hand, the baby boomers are the generation who, to quote a source that I've forgotten but is clearly from the US, got the drinking age lowered to 18 when they were in college and raised back to 21 when their kids were in college. As a generation, they engaged in (or at least developed a reputation for engaging in) a drug-fuelled sexual revolution, and then when their kids get old enough to become interested in such things there's a war on drugs and abstinence-only sex "education".
So will they stand up for us or throw us under the bus? And, in making this decision, will they remember that we'll be picking out their nursing homes?
Apart from the question of advisability (if the problem is the proportion of the population receiving OAS, this proportion will have shrunk by or shortly after 2020), I wonder if the baby boomers will object to or embrace policy that makes life harder for their children.
In general, people want a better life for their children - or at least not a worse life. No one cradles their brand new baby, all bundled up in a blanket and wearing an itty bitty hat, gazes adoringly into that scrunched up and confused little face and says "Look at you! You're going to have to work multiple jobs at once in constant contract hell until you're 80 just to scrape by, yes you are!" On top of that, the baby boomers tend to be more protective of their children than previous generations - this is, after all, the generation that invented helicopter parenting. On that basis, they sound like people who might object to policy that will worsen their children's quality of life.
On the other hand, the baby boomers are the generation who, to quote a source that I've forgotten but is clearly from the US, got the drinking age lowered to 18 when they were in college and raised back to 21 when their kids were in college. As a generation, they engaged in (or at least developed a reputation for engaging in) a drug-fuelled sexual revolution, and then when their kids get old enough to become interested in such things there's a war on drugs and abstinence-only sex "education".
So will they stand up for us or throw us under the bus? And, in making this decision, will they remember that we'll be picking out their nursing homes?
Friday, February 24, 2012
Seasonal agricultural workers
With seasonal agricultural workers in the news recently, I thought I'd share something interesting I learned from some texts I was translating a while back.
The workers I was translating about live in shared huts, shacks or trailers in the fields where they work. They work 12-16 hour days, for which they are paid basically minimum wage with living expenses deducted. They rarely, if ever, leave the farm. I don't know if this is an actual rule imposed by the farmers so much as a result of logistics, but the fact of the matter is that the existing model is not compatible with having one's own life outside of the farm.
There's no provision for picking your kids up at daycare. There's no provision for getting a book out of the library. There's no provision for a bit of time alone or with your partner.
When people talk about seasonal agricultural workers, they tend to say things like "Canadians aren't willing to do this work", as though Canadians don't want to work hard or something. But it isn't about that at all - it doesn't get as far as thinking about the difficulty of the work. The key point is that if you're going to give up your life for several months to do a job under all-consuming conditions, you're going to want to make enough money to support you for the rest of the year. Work all summer and make enough to pay for the next year's university tuition and living expenses. Spend a few months away from your family and be at home to take care of them the rest of the year.
But minimum wage - even at 80-100 hour workweeks - isn't enough to do this if you're living in Canada. However, it is enough to do this if you're living in the countries where the seasonal agricultural workers come from, because of the differences in currencies and economies and costs of living. That's why they're willing to give up their lives during farming season when we aren't. They get more money than they could ever make at home, but we get just as much as we'd make at any other job where you don't have to give up your life.
Rather than bemoaning Canadians' alleged lack of work ethic, people who want Canadians to be doing farm work should look at either a) how can we make farm work more compatible with having a life? (Shift work maybe?) or b) how can we tweak our economy so we can afford to buy food farmed by workers who are paid enough to give up their lives during farm season?
The workers I was translating about live in shared huts, shacks or trailers in the fields where they work. They work 12-16 hour days, for which they are paid basically minimum wage with living expenses deducted. They rarely, if ever, leave the farm. I don't know if this is an actual rule imposed by the farmers so much as a result of logistics, but the fact of the matter is that the existing model is not compatible with having one's own life outside of the farm.
There's no provision for picking your kids up at daycare. There's no provision for getting a book out of the library. There's no provision for a bit of time alone or with your partner.
When people talk about seasonal agricultural workers, they tend to say things like "Canadians aren't willing to do this work", as though Canadians don't want to work hard or something. But it isn't about that at all - it doesn't get as far as thinking about the difficulty of the work. The key point is that if you're going to give up your life for several months to do a job under all-consuming conditions, you're going to want to make enough money to support you for the rest of the year. Work all summer and make enough to pay for the next year's university tuition and living expenses. Spend a few months away from your family and be at home to take care of them the rest of the year.
But minimum wage - even at 80-100 hour workweeks - isn't enough to do this if you're living in Canada. However, it is enough to do this if you're living in the countries where the seasonal agricultural workers come from, because of the differences in currencies and economies and costs of living. That's why they're willing to give up their lives during farming season when we aren't. They get more money than they could ever make at home, but we get just as much as we'd make at any other job where you don't have to give up your life.
Rather than bemoaning Canadians' alleged lack of work ethic, people who want Canadians to be doing farm work should look at either a) how can we make farm work more compatible with having a life? (Shift work maybe?) or b) how can we tweak our economy so we can afford to buy food farmed by workers who are paid enough to give up their lives during farm season?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
How the Levi's ad campaign could have been made to work
I've been reading about the hilarious misfired Levi's ad campaign, and I think I see what they were trying to do and how they could have done it better.
Different people who wear the same size have different builds. For example, some people carry front-to-back, and some people carry side-to-side. Some people have long legs and a short torso, and some people have short legs and a long torso. Some people's hips curve in a smooth and gentle slope from the narrowest point of their waist to where the femur meets the pelvic bone, and some people's hips go straight out to the side at the top of the pelvic bone, slightly back inwards below that where there isn't much going on, then out again where the femur meets the pelvic bone.
I think what Levis was trying to suggest is that these jeans will fit all of these variations, or at least more of them than the average pair of jeans. Which would be useful! And it's possible that the models they use do in fact have these variations in their bone structure. But we can't tell, because of the pose. The pose only highlights their similarities, which makes it laughable.
Here's how they could have done it better:
Get an assortment of people whom the best-selling jeans on the market don't fit well. Make a video of them trying on the best-seller, focusing on the areas where it doesn't fit well. Then show them trying on the new jeans and focus on how they fit better in the problem areas. They could even get several models who all wear the same size jeans but have all different fit problems with the best-seller, and show them each trying on the same single pair of jeans (Ã la Travelling Pants), handing it from one to the next so the viewer can see that they're actually the same pants. If they don't want to show the models in their underwear, they could be in dressing-room booths with neck-to-knee doors.
The print component of the campaign could consist of a series of ads each highlighting one common fit problem, and include a link to a youtube page where you can see them actually putting on the new pants and comparing them with the old pants, to prove they're not photoshopped etc.
Of course, this ad campaign would only work if the pants actually do what they say they do. But if they do, they deserve to be well-advertised. And if they don't but claim they do, they deserve to be an object of ridicule.
Different people who wear the same size have different builds. For example, some people carry front-to-back, and some people carry side-to-side. Some people have long legs and a short torso, and some people have short legs and a long torso. Some people's hips curve in a smooth and gentle slope from the narrowest point of their waist to where the femur meets the pelvic bone, and some people's hips go straight out to the side at the top of the pelvic bone, slightly back inwards below that where there isn't much going on, then out again where the femur meets the pelvic bone.
I think what Levis was trying to suggest is that these jeans will fit all of these variations, or at least more of them than the average pair of jeans. Which would be useful! And it's possible that the models they use do in fact have these variations in their bone structure. But we can't tell, because of the pose. The pose only highlights their similarities, which makes it laughable.
Here's how they could have done it better:
Get an assortment of people whom the best-selling jeans on the market don't fit well. Make a video of them trying on the best-seller, focusing on the areas where it doesn't fit well. Then show them trying on the new jeans and focus on how they fit better in the problem areas. They could even get several models who all wear the same size jeans but have all different fit problems with the best-seller, and show them each trying on the same single pair of jeans (Ã la Travelling Pants), handing it from one to the next so the viewer can see that they're actually the same pants. If they don't want to show the models in their underwear, they could be in dressing-room booths with neck-to-knee doors.
The print component of the campaign could consist of a series of ads each highlighting one common fit problem, and include a link to a youtube page where you can see them actually putting on the new pants and comparing them with the old pants, to prove they're not photoshopped etc.
Of course, this ad campaign would only work if the pants actually do what they say they do. But if they do, they deserve to be well-advertised. And if they don't but claim they do, they deserve to be an object of ridicule.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Miscellaneous thoughts about the Star Trek reboot
I finally got around to watching the Star Trek reboot, and I have some random thoughts that aren't really a fully review.
1. When I first heard that it takes place in an alternate timeline, I thought that was just a handwave for any inconsistencies and was questioning whether that's actually good screenwriting. But after watching the movie, I think the alternate timeline was a good decision because it attends to our emotional needs as fans.
Fans tend to get disappointed when an adaptation or sequel doesn't fit into their concept of the existing universe. We have an emotional attachment to our fictional universes, and when they're messed with it ruins our happy place. Think of all the people who don't accept the Harry Potter movies or the Star Wars prequels as canon.
But, because it's an alternate timeline, we don't need to worry about whether it's canon. It doesn't change or negate the timeline we all know and love, and our favourite characters are still waiting right where we left them. This means we don't have to worry about whether they're in character or canonical or compatible with our own version of the fictional universe (just like we don't have to worry about these factors in the Mirror Universe episodes), and can just enjoy a space adventure.
2. The dialogue in this movie seemed more realistic than in any of the other Trek incarnations. In the midst of a space battle, someone on the bridge says "Are the shields even up?" Totally something a real person would say in that situation. But in other Trek incarnations, they'd say something more formal/military sounding. "Give me a status on the shields" or similar. I appreciated that.
1. When I first heard that it takes place in an alternate timeline, I thought that was just a handwave for any inconsistencies and was questioning whether that's actually good screenwriting. But after watching the movie, I think the alternate timeline was a good decision because it attends to our emotional needs as fans.
Fans tend to get disappointed when an adaptation or sequel doesn't fit into their concept of the existing universe. We have an emotional attachment to our fictional universes, and when they're messed with it ruins our happy place. Think of all the people who don't accept the Harry Potter movies or the Star Wars prequels as canon.
But, because it's an alternate timeline, we don't need to worry about whether it's canon. It doesn't change or negate the timeline we all know and love, and our favourite characters are still waiting right where we left them. This means we don't have to worry about whether they're in character or canonical or compatible with our own version of the fictional universe (just like we don't have to worry about these factors in the Mirror Universe episodes), and can just enjoy a space adventure.
2. The dialogue in this movie seemed more realistic than in any of the other Trek incarnations. In the midst of a space battle, someone on the bridge says "Are the shields even up?" Totally something a real person would say in that situation. But in other Trek incarnations, they'd say something more formal/military sounding. "Give me a status on the shields" or similar. I appreciated that.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
On Gary Webster
I am sickened and disgusted and terrified by the firing of Gary Webster, and I am so absolutely livid that this is being done in my name.
In addition to being an insult to Mr. Webster, the TTC, the people of Toronto, and basic good sense, this disgraceful behaviour is a slap in the face of the hundreds of thousands of Torontonians who came here specifically to flee this kind of corruption.
On top of that, this raises the very important question of what kind of person would be willing to replace him under these working conditions? When the previous incumbent was fired for refusing to falsify a business case, do we have any chance of getting a competent or ethical replacement?
I sincerely hope Mr. Webster wins millions and millions of dollars that the city can't afford in a massive wrongful dismissal suit. Even if he doesn't need the money, I hope he wins on principle.
If I were a lawyer, I would be volunteering to represent him pro bono.
If I owned a business, I'd be wracking my brains to figure out how to hire him for more than he made at the TTC.
Things They Should Invent: consulting firm staffed entirely by former senior civil servants driven out of their jobs for doing their jobs. (Gary Webster, Linda Keen, Richard Colvin, Munir Sheikh, etc.)
I've never donated money to a political campaign. I dislike the fact that you cannot donate anonymously. More than once I've googled someone and their political donations have come up on the first page of results, and I don't like the idea of a prospective employer or client or someone else with whom my relationship would be purely professional and apolitical having access to that information.
But my visceral reaction here, for the first time in my life, was that I want to donate as much money as possible to whomever has the best chance of beating out the people responsible for firing Mr. Webster in the next election.
In the meantime, there's a petition to get them removed from the TTC Board.
In addition to being an insult to Mr. Webster, the TTC, the people of Toronto, and basic good sense, this disgraceful behaviour is a slap in the face of the hundreds of thousands of Torontonians who came here specifically to flee this kind of corruption.
On top of that, this raises the very important question of what kind of person would be willing to replace him under these working conditions? When the previous incumbent was fired for refusing to falsify a business case, do we have any chance of getting a competent or ethical replacement?
I sincerely hope Mr. Webster wins millions and millions of dollars that the city can't afford in a massive wrongful dismissal suit. Even if he doesn't need the money, I hope he wins on principle.
If I were a lawyer, I would be volunteering to represent him pro bono.
If I owned a business, I'd be wracking my brains to figure out how to hire him for more than he made at the TTC.
Things They Should Invent: consulting firm staffed entirely by former senior civil servants driven out of their jobs for doing their jobs. (Gary Webster, Linda Keen, Richard Colvin, Munir Sheikh, etc.)
I've never donated money to a political campaign. I dislike the fact that you cannot donate anonymously. More than once I've googled someone and their political donations have come up on the first page of results, and I don't like the idea of a prospective employer or client or someone else with whom my relationship would be purely professional and apolitical having access to that information.
But my visceral reaction here, for the first time in my life, was that I want to donate as much money as possible to whomever has the best chance of beating out the people responsible for firing Mr. Webster in the next election.
In the meantime, there's a petition to get them removed from the TTC Board.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
A major flaw in mandate of the Drummond report
I was very disappointed to see that the mandate of the Drummond report specifically did not allow them to recommend tax increases. This deprives the people of Ontario of essential information. We're being told that various public services, all of which are valued by some people and some of which are valued by everyone, need to be cut, but we aren't being told what the alternative is.
In life in general, if you want to convince people to do something unpleasant, you have to tell them what the alternative is. For example, if you have a child who needs to get vaccinated, you tell them they have to get a needle so they don't get a big yucky sickness that will certainly make them miserable and might even kill them. But the too-narrow mandate of this report is akin to walking up to that child and saying simply "I'm going to stick a needle into you."
The child may or may not understand, and may or may not accept, the idea that doctors sometimes have to do unpleasant things to you to make you healthy. But, in any case, they'll be far more likely to think it's reasonable to stick a needle into them if you first tell them what you're trying to prevent. Even as an adult who understands the concept of vaccination, you'll want to know what you're being vaccinated against and maybe google the disease if you aren't already familiar with it before you allow a needle to be stuck into you.
But the government isn't telling us what exactly they're trying to prevent with these cuts; they're just taking as a given that the alternative is too expensive.
And, in life in general, if you want to convince someone that something is too expensive, you start by telling them how much it costs. For example, imagine you get the notion of buying a good bottle of real champagne. So you go to the best wine merchant in town ask for real champagne. He looks you up and down and says "You can't afford real champagne."
Is your reaction going to be "You must be right, you know best"? Probably not. Your initial reaction will probably be "WTF do you mean I can't afford real champagne? I can so afford real champagne!" Depending on the kind of pride or stubbornness you have, you might even feel so compelled to prove you can afford real champagne that you buy a bottle of champagne that you can't actually afford.
However, if he said something like "Of course. We have a lovely selection of champagne, starting at $750,000 a bottle," that would dissuade you far more effectively, wouldn't it? And it would make you far more likely to trust the wine merchant's judgement of what you are and are not able to afford in the future.
Of course, the reason why the government gave the Drummond Commission a mandate that precluded recommending tax increases is probably because the government has no intention of raising taxes under any circumstances. However, this is a strategic error. If the government's apparent plan of not raising taxes under any circumstances is even remotely sound, a report that includes information on how much our taxes would need to go up to support current service levels would support and build credibility for that plan. And, knowing that, the fact that they nevertheless mandated the Commission to neglect this key information leads me to question whether their plan is in fact sound.
In life in general, if you want to convince people to do something unpleasant, you have to tell them what the alternative is. For example, if you have a child who needs to get vaccinated, you tell them they have to get a needle so they don't get a big yucky sickness that will certainly make them miserable and might even kill them. But the too-narrow mandate of this report is akin to walking up to that child and saying simply "I'm going to stick a needle into you."
The child may or may not understand, and may or may not accept, the idea that doctors sometimes have to do unpleasant things to you to make you healthy. But, in any case, they'll be far more likely to think it's reasonable to stick a needle into them if you first tell them what you're trying to prevent. Even as an adult who understands the concept of vaccination, you'll want to know what you're being vaccinated against and maybe google the disease if you aren't already familiar with it before you allow a needle to be stuck into you.
But the government isn't telling us what exactly they're trying to prevent with these cuts; they're just taking as a given that the alternative is too expensive.
And, in life in general, if you want to convince someone that something is too expensive, you start by telling them how much it costs. For example, imagine you get the notion of buying a good bottle of real champagne. So you go to the best wine merchant in town ask for real champagne. He looks you up and down and says "You can't afford real champagne."
Is your reaction going to be "You must be right, you know best"? Probably not. Your initial reaction will probably be "WTF do you mean I can't afford real champagne? I can so afford real champagne!" Depending on the kind of pride or stubbornness you have, you might even feel so compelled to prove you can afford real champagne that you buy a bottle of champagne that you can't actually afford.
However, if he said something like "Of course. We have a lovely selection of champagne, starting at $750,000 a bottle," that would dissuade you far more effectively, wouldn't it? And it would make you far more likely to trust the wine merchant's judgement of what you are and are not able to afford in the future.
Of course, the reason why the government gave the Drummond Commission a mandate that precluded recommending tax increases is probably because the government has no intention of raising taxes under any circumstances. However, this is a strategic error. If the government's apparent plan of not raising taxes under any circumstances is even remotely sound, a report that includes information on how much our taxes would need to go up to support current service levels would support and build credibility for that plan. And, knowing that, the fact that they nevertheless mandated the Commission to neglect this key information leads me to question whether their plan is in fact sound.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
How primary care physicians are compensated
This is either a "Teach Me About..." or a "Things They Should Invent", depending on how accurate my current understanding is.
My understanding is that (in Ontario, at least) primary care physicians are only compensated for the thing you make the appointment for, which is why you're only supposed to bring up one issue per appointment.
Is this understanding correct?
If this is correct, I wonder if the medical system could be improved by allowing doctors to bill for whatever they actually end up doing. This occurs to me because of a recent experience with my dentist. I was in for a check-up and cleaning, and it was discovered that I needed a filling. So they did the filling too, then and there, without having to make another appointment. It would be convenient if doctors could do this too. Would billing for everything they end up doing make this happen?
If I'm misunderstanding how doctors are compensated and they do bill for actual work done, why are you only supposed to bring up one issue per appointment? The idea of one issue per appointment is culturally pervasive enough that there must be more of a reason than simply because there are people waiting in line after you.
My understanding is that (in Ontario, at least) primary care physicians are only compensated for the thing you make the appointment for, which is why you're only supposed to bring up one issue per appointment.
Is this understanding correct?
If this is correct, I wonder if the medical system could be improved by allowing doctors to bill for whatever they actually end up doing. This occurs to me because of a recent experience with my dentist. I was in for a check-up and cleaning, and it was discovered that I needed a filling. So they did the filling too, then and there, without having to make another appointment. It would be convenient if doctors could do this too. Would billing for everything they end up doing make this happen?
If I'm misunderstanding how doctors are compensated and they do bill for actual work done, why are you only supposed to bring up one issue per appointment? The idea of one issue per appointment is culturally pervasive enough that there must be more of a reason than simply because there are people waiting in line after you.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Better spin on the deal-breaker personal ads
I previously came up with the idea of deal-breaker personal ads, and they've been festering in my brain, occasionally being improved.
Today my shower gave me a better way to spin them: call them "Things you need to know before you date me" or something similar. On a website, they wouldn't appear in the initial personal ad, but you would see them before messaging a person. If you find the deal-breakers unappealing, you simply don't message that person.
Today my shower gave me a better way to spin them: call them "Things you need to know before you date me" or something similar. On a website, they wouldn't appear in the initial personal ad, but you would see them before messaging a person. If you find the deal-breakers unappealing, you simply don't message that person.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)