10 Benefits of Reading: Why You Should Read Every Day
Talk about Xbox One hacking, modifications, homebrew and anything related to it. Fixed a bug that was apparently added with the last bug-fix. ReadWrite - The Blog of Things.
Hack windows Read&Write Gold Download and Installation Instructions
Watch them, and learn what he's teaching. GOLD'S GYM GGTL39610.0 USER MANUAL Pdf Download. Avoid Metal and Gold Detector Hidden Metal Finder hack cheats for your own safety, choose our tips and advices confirmed by pro players, testers and users like you.
All folders are marked read only. - Microsoft Community
Very Basic Arduino Uno Serial.readString() operation https://frs-tula.ru/download/?file=954. Banknote Identifiers and Symbols https://frs-tula.ru/download/?file=948. Fist step it's to get your activation code.
C - How should I get started on writing device drivers
Author Reveals my name. Read&Write GOLD Mobile is a portable version of Read&Write 11.5 Gold, the award-winning literacy support software program for individuals with reading and writing difficulties. For the toolbar to display correctly on Windows 10 computers that have touch screens: Right click the Read&Write Gold icon.
WhatsApp Plus Golden 2020 APK Download latest Version v8
Unlimited quantity of unlocking. This software is available free of charge to download to students/staff of the CIT until the end of July 2020. News Site Hacked - 1000s of Japanese pages added - SERP in.
How to get Mobo Serial number
Technologies have developed, and reading Read Write 10 Gold Manual Edition Ebook books might be far easier and much easier. Many downloads like Read And Write Gold 10 may also include a serial number, cd key or keygen. Press Play on the main toolbar to read the dictionary definition aloud.
|1||Activation Invalid when opening Read & Write 10||66%|
|2||Guide - GHB1 - Start Here Beginner Guide to Game Hacking||91%|
|3||5 Best Hacking Books You Must Read To Be A Hacker||60%|
|4||Read & Write - Assistive Technology & Accommodations||86%|
|5||3 Ways to Remove Write Protection on an SD Card||91%|
Free python Pandas: How to read only first n rows of CSV files
Activation key how to Get a Hacked Roblox Account Back: 10 Steps (with
Activating Read&Write for Google Chrome by Product Code. The introduction for a movie review has to be appealing, so that the reader can get the feel of wanting to read more. Read&Write, Fluency Tutor & Browsealoud.
Key recognize a hacked AOL Mail account - AOL Help
Literacy, accessibility and dyslexia software for employees & students with reading and writing difficulties. Long Range Passive Rfid Animal Ear Tag For Cattle/cow/goat, Find Complete Details about Long Range Passive Rfid Animal Ear Tag For Cattle/cow/goat, Rfid Tags For Chicken, Ear Tags For Pigs, Rfid Tag For High Temperature from Supplier or Manufacturer-Shenzhen Enrong Smart Card Technology Co, Ltd. Covering all the latest headlines and full reports.
Read & Write 10 Gold
We also offer Windows 10 Pro cd Key HERE Office 2020 Pro Plus cd Key HERE Available Languages: MultilanguagesActivation instructions for phone and retail versions HEREThis version of MS Office 2020 contains Word, Excel, PowerPoint, One Note, Outlook, Publisher, Skype for Business and Access to be used permanently on 1 PC (can be used only. How to Hack a Website with Basic HTML Coding: 9 Steps. Tudor serial numbers are more complicated to accurately date than Rolex Serial Numbers as there is far less information on Tudor serial numbers available.
AV1 - Follow The Smart Money
Alright fuckers, a lot of posts recently asking how one goes about finding a 10 bagger before it hits the first bag. And I've been thinking about this myself lately as I've been trading since July and while I'm in the green by about 13%, it's not much to write home about when you read comments where someone bought BRN at 7c, 3DP at 10c or APT at $2 etc. I'm done with jumping on mid rocket or onto stocks that go nowhere.
But where are you supposed to find these gems? Well, if you're in on 3DP, then you'd agree the easiest answer is to follow the smart money. We've all got a hard on for Bevan Slattery and what his investment did for 3DP's shareprice. But he's not the only whale out there, so if you have major regrets about not buying 3DP when Bevan did, you have a similar opportunity to rectify that now.
So here I introduce Mark Mconnel, who bought in at around 12c in March 2019 (https://www.google.com/amp/s/stockhead.com.au/tech/why-this-nine-time-young-rich-lister-joined-the-board-of-a-14m-adtech/%3famp you could probably just read this link instead of my dd but there's still some extra info below). This guy sits on the board of AV1 and is also ex CEO of Citadel Group. He's very well known to jump out of a sinking ship and cut his losses very quickly so the fact that he didn't sell when the shareprice was 26c (currently 12.5c) is a huge green-money-bag-flag. In fact, he's pouring more and more money into AV1. Since joining he hasn't sold a single share and is only buying more and more. He also personally funded the last cap raise for 2 mil and just bought another 70k worth of shares on the market.
So that's pretty much all I needed to know to buy in, at an average price of 12.3c. But if unlike me, you're not a degenerate, autistic gambler, below I have paraphrased what another asxbets member has told me about who Adveritas are, what they do and what makes them unique.
Adveritas have the most advanced ad fraud protection in the world that reports REAL TIME to you. Also, they are only targeting the world's biggest companies and winning them. Bar one exception (touched on below) they haven't lost a single tender yet. They have had a Google partnership in the works for a while and now announced its go to market strategy and made a refferal to it in their last last announcement.
When AV1 was called Tech Mpire they collected and analysed data and in doing so they have trained an AI bot to recognise fraud. They had millions upon millions upon millions of data points on people, such as how they behaved and interacted. They trained an AI bot to learn these behaviour patterns and created an algorithim to create around 200 data points on a person via cookies and other embedded agreements within apps and phones. So once you click on the advert and this runs in the background it tells the client if you're in their target market, therefore producing more data. And these days, data is worth more than gold. Facebook, YouTube, Tiktok etc are so valuable because of the data they create and target advertise.
Within about 5 seconds this AI can determine what apps you last had open. What websites you had open, how long for etc etc. This gives them the ability to real time track whether the person who's just visited the advert is a real person or a bot. This is super important when you engage a marketing company for millions to guarantee visibility to your product and know if they are out sourcing to click farms. This is a huge revenue stream and directing their business to Google play store and mobile apps makes it even easier to profile for the customer and figure out if they are getting what they paid for.
If you've looked at the chart you'll see it lost alot of momentum because of covid. It also didn't help that there was radio silence from the board, who dont appear to be too worried about the dip as they have been seen to be accumulating at these low prices. But the lack of updates to the market, along with the speculative nature of the investment, plus other stocks bouncing back while AV1 stagnated would be my uneducated explanation for the SP being still low.
Another point worth mentioning is that they announced a performance rights issue. This was issued on the basis they sign a third tier one client. In their own words a tier 1 client is someone who gets a billion clicks a month. That's fucking huge.
As they changed to Adveritas that performance incentive stayed. But rather than announcing to the market who the tier 1 client was or any details surrounding it, they instead issued the performance rights. This potentially indicated that they signed the tier 1 client. One can only speculate as to the reason why they didn't actually announce the clients to the market but it was interesting that rather than announce a contract win they just announced the satisfaction of the conditions to award the shares. Some have speculated it's so they can continue to accumulate at these low prices as we have witnessed recently with more buying from the board but who knows.
During my research into the funding of Citadel Groups capital raising I found that Petra group, whose clients are known to be high net worth individuals and investment firms and also used to do all the capital raises for Citadel Group, were responsible for big parcels so it can be deduced that more 'institutional' money is going into the company. Additionally, Regal funds was a big big investor in Citadel Group and they're also now a big investor in AV1. Again, follow the smart money!
In terms of clients, AV1 are targeting the biggest names in the world. They presented at an adfraud summit hosted by IMPLY, a neutral ad platform (buyers sellers of ads and adtech offer through platform) and was presenting along with Netflix, Twitch and Target (US). This puts them in pretty good company and showed a neutral platform viewed their tech and offering very highly.
I mentioned i think they won every tender so far except one but rumour has it the only reason they didn't get to sign [major company name redacted post edit] is because the higher ups decided they want to keep it all in house and do their own ad fraud. Other than this, they have won every tender they have gone upp for to my knowledge. They won Rappi and Gojek which are the main ride-sharing companies in South East Asia and Latin America. But [major company name redacted post edit] think they can create what they can't. They don't have the data to train the AI to the same capability. Which is why Rappi and Gojek signed and renewed.
It's all about capability with AV1. There are loads of other AI software out there but none of which has the particular millions and millions of data points collected to train the algorithim.
As a business owner if I market something, I need to know it's genuine organic traffic to my target audience. Not some Chinese or Indian click farm.
So in conclusion, I can't be assed writing anymore, so here are some rockets 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
TLDR: follow the smart money.
Disclaimer, dyor, not financial advice, I'm still learning how to tie my own shoelaces, don't pm me cos your wife is upset you took out a mortgage for this.
Debunking Free Market Republican/Libertarian healthcare myths, an Intro to Healthcare economics, an overview of Health Policy, and presenting the Neoliberal solution to the Healthcare problem.
Note: This post is not a critique of the American healthcare system. I understand that American healthcare is not a free market, but I'm not criticizing the American system. I'm highlighting the problems with the healthcare markets themselves.
Now before we get into the market failures that plague healthcare markets, it is first and foremost important to understand what a market failure is. A market failure occurs when there is an inefficient distribution of goods and services in the free market. In other words, it occurs when individuals acting in rational self-interest produce a less than optimal or economically inefficient outcome for the group. If you don't fully understand what a market failure is, I suggest you read through the article before you continue reading.
Part 1: Competition for Healthcare Services.Or more specifically, the lack thereof. There is significant evidence that people don't shop around in healthcare, including those who are uninsured, so the mechanism of competition in healthcare is far weaker. This is largely due to an information asymmetry between patients and doctors. When you get sick, you may not know what the best treatment is. You rely on the advice of a physician, who has years of specialized training. And even with hindsight, you cannot reliably judge for yourself whether the treatment the physician offered you was the right one. Sometimes state-of-the-art medicine fails to improve a patient’s health. And given the natural restorative power of the human body, the wrong treatment can sometimes appear to work.
The fact that people don’t shop is especially obvious for emergency care, since a person cannot be expected to price shop in the throes of death, but it remains the case for non-emergency services as well. A study that looks at the rates at which people shop around for MRIs found that people typically get their M.R.I.s wherever their doctors advise. In fact, on the way to their M.R.I., patients drove by an average of six other places where the procedure could have been done more cheaply. Read this article for a more in-depth explanation of the study.
This leads me to my next point, regarding price transparency. It seems intuitive that ensuring that all prices are available would make it easier to shop, so more people would do so. After all, people can't shop around if they can't even see the prices to begin with! Unfortunately, transparent pricing doesn't seem to help either, largely because most people simply don't use them. This isn't because of any lack of encouragement or enthusiasm either. This study surveyed 2,996 non-elderly Americans and found that despite the vast majority strongly agreeing that shopping around is a great idea, only 13% of them actually sought out price info while only 3% actually compared prices before receiving care. For further reading, I suggest you look into these:  & .
These results aren't unique to the US either. A study on the effects of transparent pricing in Singapore found that there is no evidence of any marked decrease in prices in the years following the implementation of price transparency legislation. Even more interesting is that this research paper found that healthcare costs in Singapore actually increased when the government loosened regulations, because hospitals bought expensive new technology and focused on premium care while neglecting the lower levels for poorer citizens. This led to the government once again tightening its hold.
A German study looking at hospital selection found that it was physician referrals that had the greatest influence in a patient's choice, and pricing wasn't even in the list of factors. This is consistent with evidence from the US. For further reading on how physician behavior affects healthcare spending, read this: , , , and .
Now, will making people more responsible for their spending incentivize them to shop around more often? Well for one, evidence is clear that it does lead to a marked decrease in healthcare spending, but that's mainly because people cut back on spending entirely. Sometimes even for medically necessary services! However, a study looking at evidence from HDHPs found that while consumers do reduce their healthcare expenditure when more responsible for their money, cost-sharing does not seem to decrease prices. This conclusion is supported by further evidence.
All in all, it seems competition for healthcare services is a bit of a lost cause… Leading into the next section: Health insurance markets.
Part 2: Competition in Health Insurance Markets.Like the market for healthcare services, health insurance is similarly uncompetitive. However, unlike the market for healthcare services, health insurance is not a lost cause and sufficient competition can not only be induced through regulation, but competition even seems to improve quality and cut costs.
In a free market, health insurance will play a much smaller role. Only those who are rich and/or healthy will be able to afford health insurance because insurance companies price premiums for the sick much higher that of the healthy, largely due to the greater risk involved. Unfortunately, since poverty is heavily correlated with bad health, it just so turns out that the poorest people will be paying the highest prices. Prices that they cannot afford. This is hardly ideal, it makes little sense to have a healthcare system that denies access to those who need it the most. Even when insurance companies have to charge the same premiums regardless of risk, they will find that insuring the healthy is far more profitable, and tend to actively reach out to the healthy while holding the sick in reserve. This is what we call “risk selection”. As David Cutler puts it in his books “The Quality Cure” (Seriously recommend reading this book if you’re interested in health econ. It's a great intro.):
This same dynamic explains why people find it hard to identify good insurance plans, even when they are in good health. Insurers do not reach out to people readily, like sellers of other goods. Rather, they wait in reserve, checking whether the person is profitable to insure before offering a policy. Their mentality is: don’t encourage people to sign up for insurance unless you know they are healthy. This makes it difficult to comparison shop.Now let’s take a look at the evidence. We know people often misunderstand insurance, which leads them to pick suboptimal plans (Like in Medicare Part D). There is even evidence that this behavior is exploited by insurers to raise prices and offer less. For further reading, see here: , , and .
Fixing this is rather straightforward. We can prevent insurance companies from denying health insurance based on pre-existing conditions (or sicker people in general), limit the variance of premiums between healthy and sick, and prevent them from tossing aside the sick when they need the most care. This policy is implemented in many different nations, including the US (with the Affordable Care Act), but this alone isn’t enough to make competition in health insurance viable. The problem with preventing insurance from denying coverage and limiting variability is that while sicker people gain coverage, healthier people forgo it because they no longer see it as a good deal and can insure themselves easily when they do get sick. This leads to the risk pool getting ever sicker leading to increasing premiums until the market collapses as a whole! This is what we call Adverse selection (aka the Death Spiral). David Cutler has a pretty good paper over how Adverse Selection destroyed an insurance market in Massachusetts.
How do we fix this problem? Why yes, the individual mandate of course! The individual mandate ensures even the healthy have insurance, so that the market remains stable. The healthy subsidize some of the sick and benefit from usage of general healthcare services themselves! There is an abundance of evidence that the individual mandate helps by reducing insurance premiums like Effects of Eliminating IM penalty in California, Adverse selection and individual mandate, and many more: , , and .
Part 3: Moral Hazard and the Merits of Cost Sharing.Moral Hazard is a market failure that occurs when one party in a transaction has the opportunity to assume additional risks that negatively affect the other party. In the case of healthcare, it would be the customer unnecessarily using healthcare services far more frequently (since the insurance company will pay for it), which increases costs for the insurance company, increases wait times due to a larger demand, and overall leads to wastage in healthcare usage. Insurance companies combat this through the use of cost sharing methods such as deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, etc to ensure that people are responsible and discourage them from overusing healthcare.
I’d already touched on cost-sharing and its effects a little in Part 1, but this section intends to go more in depth into the topic. As I stated before, cost-sharing does lead to customers cutting back on healthcare usage, but sometimes it results in customers cutting back on healthcare that is actually necessary! So it's important to strike a good balance between the two, to minimize wastage and ensure customers get the healthcare they need.
Moral Hazard is a huge problem in most universal healthcare systems, and there is an ongoing debate within these nations regarding what should be done about it. To properly highlight the effects of cost sharing on moral hazard, take a look at this study, which is considered the gold standard for determining the effects of insurance reform on medical spending. I would provide more, but this is really all that's needed.
Note: The lack of cost sharing is actually one of the largest issues with Senator Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for all plan. He claims no co-pays or deductibles as if that’s a good thing, but it just so happens that it could lead to billions in waste every year, while driving up wait times all the same. If we apply the results from the RAND study cited above, it could lead to as much as a 30% increase in spending, which is rather ludicrous.
Part 4: Drugs and Price ControlsOne of the most common questions people seem to have regarding healthcare is why price controls are advocated for by many, when they are usually seen as economically damaging elsewhere. Well, the answer to that question is that Price controls in healthcare work because market forces don’t. As I’ve stated before, most people don’t shop around, which gives healthcare providers significant market power to increase prices far beyond the market equilibrium and it doesn’t help that healthcare is both demand inelastic and not substitutable. All the price controls are doing is bringing prices down to the market equilibrium... in theory (some go further, resulting in negative effects like loss of innovation).
It just so happens that price controls and drugs in the United States are intricately linked, because the high prices of drugs are a direct result of Medicare’s abysmal price control policy. Many believe that drug costs are incredibly high in the USA, and they aren’t entirely wrong. However, it should be noted that we pay drug molecule costs that are similar to other advanced economies, such as Germany. So why exactly are the prices so high? As I stated before, it has to do with Medicare.
Currently, the Medicare price control policy is based on a drug’s ingredient cost, which makes absolutely no sense. The wack pricing scheme often leads to increased demand for drugs that happen to be less efficient, leading to higher usage of less efficient drugs, resulting in higher costs and expenditure. That said, this isn’t the only reason why drugs are expensive. Some others include:
- US physicians & consumers have a preference for branded drugs.
- US physicians prefer new drugs over old drugs irrespective of relative efficacy. A new drug that is more expensive than an older drug but has the same efficacy will be used more simply because it's new.
- US physicians writing no-substitution script.
- Medicare rules don't allow for substitution if a brand name is on a script.
- The US doesn't allow insurers (including CMS) to refuse to cover expensive drugs with poor efficacy. There are many drugs that offer little or no clinical advantage but are common anyway, this is particularly rife with end of life care. In other countries this is dealt with by central negotiating authorities who impose efficacy/cost restrictions on new drugs, as a result there are many drugs which are either not available at all outside the US or have heavily restricted use outside of the US.
- Switch to an efficacy based price control system (like every other country lol), which would bring down the prices of the best drugs, leading to decreased demand (since people are now using less but better drugs).
- Streamline FDA approval processes to ensure entry into American markets is easier, remove allow insurers to deny coverage for drugs deemed inefficient, encourage physicians to prescribe generics, etc.
- Negotiate fair payment rates with other nations to ensure innovation thrives (DIFFICULT!!!)
Part 5: Frequently Asked QuestionsQuestion 1 - What about Surgery Center of Oklahoma and other direct primary care facilities? They seem to have cut costs and the free market appears to be working there!
At first glance, DPC does appear to reduce prices. This study finds that DPCs have lower prices across the nation (although it should be noted that data regarding quality is lacking). This is largely due to the much lower overhead from dropping insurance and because regulations like MACRA and other quality and cost regulations don't apply. And while this is great for smaller items, such as lab work, routine check-ups, minor injuries, etc, it fails when someone actually needs medical treatment and is unable to get it because they either don't have insurance and/or the hospital doesn't participate in the cash model! Emergencies are a whole nother problem, because they aren't covered by most membership fees at all, which can be financially ruinous because surgeries may cost in the tens of thousands of dollars (lower than the cost in a non-DPC, but financially ruinous nonetheless). Therefore, it's actually recommended by some DPCs to buy insurance in addition to the monthly membership fees if you have a major health problem and/or afraid of emergencies, so it may not save very much money at all for those who aren't healthy or committed the heinous crime of having a pre-existing condition (as many as 100 million Americans)!
Lastly, is that the study I cited above, regarding lower costs, may not apply to its fullest extent in a truly free market, because they are a vertically-differentiated site of care that may or may not exist under free market conditions and the DPCs themselves benefit from insurance companies reducing prices through their bargaining power (See: Medicare Part D reduced drug prices by introducing drug coverage), so prices may rise in their absence. There is no guarantee that a free market would work! Even at this point, there is evidence that lack of regulation has actually become a bit of a problem in DPCs because there is evidence that stronger perverse incentives are present, which may further increase costs and wastage in the healthcare system! In addition, this study by the American College of Physicians notes that:
Retainer practices note that they are able to see their patients more often throughout the year. Once again, there is no evidence to suggest that this is always necessary or effective. With all of the “amenities” offered by these practices, it is important to do a cost–benefit analysis to understand the true effect of the “extras” in a practice. At this time, no research or data are available to indicate that many of these amenities in a practice yield better clinical outcomes. It is important to be aware of the potential for overutilization of physician time and medical services.This shows that the data regarding service quality in DPCs are also very lacking. There is very little evidence to indicate that extra time and additional visits, one of the so-called major benefits of DPCs, actually improve health outcomes. There is rationale to believe that DPCs may also offer lower quality services because they may not participate in quality measurement programs and have no interoperability with other electronic health record systems. The lack of oversight and accountability can lead to certain doctors abusing their power and overload their practices with subscribing patients and compromise on quality of care. Since people don't price shop, competition won't be around to save you either.
Question 2 - But what about LASIK and Cosmetic Surgeries? Aren’t they proof that reducing insurance coverage and increasing competition helps? After all, Competition reduced their prices!
The problem with this claim is that it ignores the elasticity of demand of cosmetic surgery and other healthcare treatments. If someone charges too much for a cosmetic surgery, you can simply refrain from buying the surgeon's service because you don't need it to live. Can't exactly say the same for something like heart or brain surgery because you will die without it, so you will be forced to pay the price, regardless of how high. Healthcare providers take advantage of this to raise prices. It's not just life and death surgeries that are demand inelastic though. This study finds that most healthcare services in general are demand inelastic. This article explains it better.
Additionally, it should also be noted that unlike other healthcare services, people who seek out cosmetic surgery are usually much wealthier and better informed and the quality of the cosmetic surgery is very easy to assess, unlike other health services, all of which make it much easier to shop around. Move away from cosmetic surgery, and you can see the argument fall apart pretty quickly. Take a look at dental procedures for example. Like cosmetic surgery, they aren’t covered as much by insurance, yet dental costs have been rising just as quickly as other health services. For another example, take a look at veterinary care, which is seldom covered by insurance. Vet costs have also been rising rather quickly.
Question 3 - Isn’t there a lot of bad regulation in the USA that hurts healthcare?
The answer is yes, there most certainly is. However, while removing them would help, healthcare markets themselves are fundamentally flawed, and most major problems would persist. Even the ACA has some bad regulations within it that inhibit competition and counteract the effects of the good regulations, although that’s beyond the scope of this post. Next up, take CON Laws for example, I agree 100% that they need to go. There was actually a great post about it over on neoliberal. However, there is evidence that repealing CON Laws may help by introducing new competitors into the market, it is doubtful that they will improve quality without first addressing physician scarcity.
The next most common bad regulation I hear about is how the US prevents insurers from selling across state lines, and that preventing this from happening would result in lower costs due to competition. However, most evidence points to the fact that it would do very little. At most, it would reduce variance in healthcare premiums across the nation, but not the overall cost, so some may benefit, but some will definitely lose. Now to the evidence, the Affordable Care Act allows states to form agreements with each other and five states already allow insurers to sell across state lines. However, no insurer actually takes advantage of this as of now. As this study puts it:
According to many insurance experts, the primary barrier for an insurer looking to enter a new market is not the state’s regulations, it’s the cost of building up a provider network at discounted prices.The massive cost of negotiating new networks deters insurers from expanding their plans beyond that of their state. Lastly, this study states that regulation is only one of many drivers of high cost of health insurance, so it is clear that the free market will not be able to adequately address the cost.
Part 6: The Neoliberal SolutionTo recap, healthcare markets are unique. They are unlike any other markets due to them facing the worst market failures of any insurance industry and much more powerful information asymmetry, resulting in a sector that’s barely better than functional at its very best. However, there are many ways to tame the beast that is healthcare through a combination of various policies built on an abundance of research. From my perspective, the list of most important policies (assuming we want to keep a market-based system) would be in no specific order:
- Prevent health insurers from denying coverage based on health and limit variability of premiums based on health.
- Individual Mandate
- Implement an All-payer System
- Public option (or something like medicare/caid) in order to remove the sickest and poorest individuals from the private health insurance markets, which significantly reduces premiums.
- Proper price controls (I may make a separate post on this later)
- Necessitate a basic level of coverage private insurers must provide, such a cancer screening, etc
- Any regulations necessary to ensure competitive practices within health insurance markets (competition within insurance leads to better outcomes for lower prices).