Adaptation to the College Admission Scandal

 For the past couple of years, the news has been full of the college admission scandal.  Celebrities, brokers, coaches, and administrators were all guilty of various forms of cheating to get students into "big name" colleges and universities.

What were the real "crimes?"  There clearly was lying, forgery, tax avoidance, tax cheating, identity theft, and other real, but minor crimes.  To the general public, it was wealthy people using their affluence to cheat the system and get their kids into schools that they probably would not have been admitted to based upon their own merits.  But the biggest "crime" was the secrecy involved.  School administrators, alumni, boards, and sometimes even the students did not know that this was going on. 

It is clear that wealthy parents are more than willing to pay to get their students into slots.  It is also very clear that schools can use additional money from endowments to help with their infrastructure or to use for grants for students who are qualified to enter but do not have adequate funds to attend.

Why not put the two together?  Why not allow schools to allow a very small number of freshman entry slots to be "bid" for by the parents.  I could see a large university allocating 100 slots or a small college with 10 slots to be bid on.  The students would complete their normal application process, and the parents would commit to paying the normal full tuition and room/board.  However, the parents could then place "endowment bids" of tax-deductible amounts online.  The school admissions panel could then take the top 10 bids and evaluate the student's application.  

I think it is a "win-win" -- the school receives funding, and students get a chance.  Someone could say that the wealthy student "displaced" a slot for someone better qualified.  But the additional funding provided would help fund more students

The Busy Repairman? --Help from Youtube

 I saw this article in today's Union-Tribune by Soo Youn from the Washington Post.:  "The Busy Repairman:  

Ovens, dishwashers and washing machines — all kinds of appliances —

are breaking down like never before, but there’s nobody to fix them"

The premise of the article is that because everyone is now at home much more, they are using their appliances more and they are failing.  Repair technicians are in short supply and it is now taking longer for them to be able to obtain parts.  

I have no reason to doubt Soo Youn's report.  But It did surprise me.  I had thought that the need for traditional repair services was dropping off rapidly.  Yes, appliances are now made better and are more reliable.  Yes, we can now get repair parts via eBay or Amazon within a day or so.  But the biggest improvement is having youtube with detailed instructions for how to repair every type of problem with every different model of device done by multiple experts in every language.   These youtube videos aren't just "available" -- they are heavily used!  Some have had many millions of views.  Just imagine how bad the "shortage" would be if we didn't have this new, wonderful youtube resource to help us repair stuff! 

  

College Student work at Trump Troll Farm

 Donald Trump presidential campaign is using teams of college students to spread disinformation over social media.  See this article: 

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=00f3c1e2-cff3-4907-a949-771e11b019d1

The article cites a team in Arizona doing it.  But that probably is the only team that was caught or detected doing it.  I suspect there are teams all over the country (and probably in Russia too) who are doing the same thing.  

It sort of reminds me of Nov 1964 and I was a junior in college in Western Pennsylvania.  A group of us volunteered to go to polls and stand a legal distance away and hand out matchbooks printed with the name of a Republican candidate for the Pennsylvania legislature.  I still was not old enough to vote or drink at the time.  But the candidate offered to pay us $20 for the day, and to come to a party at his big home in the evening for free beer!  Of course, the beer was the big incentive!  At the time, however, I don't believe any of us would have thought to spread misinformation about candidates.

Why does Donald Trump want a "Pro-American Curriculum?"

 Today's Union-Tribune reported that Trump wants US School curricula to be "pro-American." -- See this link: 

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=b3daef7e-6b2f-4db5-9592-207e34913f8c

From the article, it appears that he does not want our schools to teach about the mistakes made by America, but only the supposed good things that were done.  My elementary and high school education was in Maryland during the 1950s and 60s.  I did not remember ever hearing about how the US abused the Native American Indians, Blacks, Women, Chinese, or Japanese.  Many of these aspects of history were not even taught about in college history classes.  I always wondered why that happened!  

Now I think I understand!  The victors get to write the history and do not want to be shamed. The so-called "religious right" throughout history has claimed that the groups that were being oppressed were "inferior" and that God made them that way.  Of course, they were proven wrong time after time.  They now want to bury that past!

Medicare 3-day Rule seemingly a desperate attempt to control costs by cheating the unaware

Terry Savage's Column in Sunday January 19, 2020 issue of the San Diego Union Tribune cautions medicare recipients about a "trick" that Medicare and the hospitals try to play on patients in order to cut costs. 

Medicare.gov website tries to explain the complex rules and procedures for determination of whether a patient is "admitted" to the hospital or being "observed" at the hospital. Try reading them at the link yourself and see what you think!  The way it is worded is that there are complex, but vague rules that our Doctor and hospital must use in deciding whether the patient will be admitted or observed.  I've been unable to find any clear guidelines.  The appeal process that is mentioned says that some aspects can be appealed, but doesn't mention the admitted/observed decision. According to the Lexology website, it appears that Medicare has not been consistent in applying the rule, and supposedly has "overpaid" for services that should not have been approved under the 3-day rule.

Apparently Medicare is considering eliminating the rule and counting the three days in the hospital whether in observation or admitted status.  Nobody seems to know how much has been saved in Skilled Nursing Facility costs to the Government due to this change.  Patients, Doctors, and Hospitals can game the system.  For example if a hip replacement patient is ready for discharge after 2 days, they can simply keep the patient for an additional day to allow qualification for Skilled Nursing Facility Coverage.  Did that save the Government money?  The costs for the additional day in the hospital may be much more expensive to the Government than the several days cost at the SNF.

When my wife went to a local Scripps Hospital for major foot surgery she had to sign a bunch of forms.  One form did declare that she would be in "observation status" rather than being "admitted."  Of course, being our first experience like this, we didn't know the difference!  We were told that the treatment in either status was exactly the same, so it appeared to not matter.  As it turned out, all went well, she stayed in the hospital overnight and did not need SNF.  My daughter-in-law was able to take a few days off and help me help her during the critical first few days of recovery. 

What gets me is that the hospital did not explain the trade-offs on the subtle difference between observe and admitted status.  The surgery was planned many months in advance, so we had time to shop for a doctor and hospital that would have given her "admitted" status.  But when completing the forms on the day of scheduled surgery it seems much too late. 

If Medicare is actually saving money from the 3-day rule, it is making it from those patients who are less informed, or who arrive at a hospital in an emergency state and do not have the time to make an informed decision.