Healthcare

[cradleandshoot]

I can laugh about this now, but it was not funny at the time. There was a miscommunication about my surgery. RGH had decided all the surgical rooms were being reserved for emergencies. My surgery was already accommodated and still had the green light. Someone took the time to tell my surgeon that my surgery was canceled until the next day. Everybody was ready to rock and roll but my surgeon was already halfway home until they texted him my surgery was a go.

[Farfromgeneva]

I can laugh about this now, but it was not funny at the time. There was a miscommunication about my surgery. RGH had decided all the surgical rooms were being reserved for emergencies. My surgery was already accommodated and still had the green light. Someone took the time to tell my surgeon that my surgery was canceled until the next day. Everybody was ready to rock and roll but my surgeon was already halfway home until they texted him my surgery was a go.

Was the doctor one of these cats?

https://youtu.be/hoe24aSvLtw

[cradleandshoot]

I can laugh about this now, but it was not funny at the time. There was a miscommunication about my surgery. RGH had decided all the surgical rooms were being reserved for emergencies. My surgery was already accommodated and still had the green light. Someone took the time to tell my surgeon that my surgery was canceled until the next day. Everybody was ready to rock and roll but my surgeon was already halfway home until they texted him my surgery was a go.

Was the doctor one of these cats?

https://youtu.be/hoe24aSvLtw

No, not by a long shot. I will give him credit he didn't say anything about the mixup. He just got into his scrubs and hightailed it into the OR.

[jhu72]

"Free" market wizardry sure does a great job of curing cancer:



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VoTMOdI9adk/T ... +tumor.gif



It's time to stop with the "free" market idiotology and come up with a universal health care package for all.

The problem with that cartoon is that it represents what socialized medicine already looks like in the USA....its called the VA.

Oops, we already of what so many are pandering for, and its evident it does not work any better, may been worse than what we already have.

The VA isn’t properly funded. That’s it. That’s the problem. If it was, they’d get whatever is needed, full stop. No red tape. Just show your ID—-and get what you need. Instead? You get a system that’s designed to say “no” because they don’t have money. Bet they waste hundreds of millions to have processors paid to say “no, you can’t prove this happened on the battlefield.”

Wanna see real socialist care? UMichigan. UMaryland. UCLA—-all government medical personnel. Best care in the world. But as I’ve said 1,000 times ——fake conservatives think “that doesn’t count as socialism “. Sorry, it counts.

The VA is finally getting it right. I guess after the sacrifice of so many of our young people they are stepping up big-time. I went to the new VA facility on Caulkins Rd in Rochester last fall. I always thank every veteran I meet for their service. When I went into that facility with my 82nd airborne baseball cap the people that took care of me thanked me for my service. When I looked at all of the young and old veterans that day I was so grateful that our government finally started to pay back a debt to these men and women who sacrificed so much for their country. The government can get healthcare right. I don't have a link. I hope all of you look up the VA hospital on Caulkins Rd. I thought for a long time that taking care of our veterans was lip service. They finally got it right.

They didn't just finally get it right. I have been telling you for as long as these forums have existed, the VA does a really good job when funded properly. The problem today is that funding remains spotty. When a new facility is brought online it is properly funded, but as time goes by they become less effective because we don't continue funding the facility at the needed level. New facilities are always great.

You never had the privilege of having to use the old VA outpatient clinic on Westfall Rd. The place was a chithole and an embarrassment to veterans health care. They did finally get it right Dr Wizard. The desperate need for help for these veterans could finally not be ignored any longer. My primary care physician works out of the new facility on Caulkins Rd. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. The government did get it right but it did not come about easily. I enjoy using my facility, I enjoy chatting with all the veterans while we are waiting to see our doctor. All a person needs to do is look at the baseball caps these old soldiers wear on their head when they come in. The conversation follows.

... over the past 40 years I have (my company) been involved in supplying equipment and software for many dozens of new VA hospitals and clinics across the US. I am glad that they finally got around to your old VA facility. But the fact stands, what you have seen has been seen by many dozens of VA facilities in the US over the past 40 years. What you will see over the next 20 years is what has been seen by all the other VA facilities, an inability to sustain this bright shiny new facility due to insufficient operating budgets. I am sure you will avoid this because your facility and you are special.

Somehow politicians and bureaucrats never contemplate or understand Opex…the only discussions are capex. Hence my major distrust on spending (second order events in general but when any generic kid can learn to model Argus to hear DCF models for CRE projects line item by line item I don’t understand how this happens every single time where nobody was prepared for the opex)

... it is the biggest problem the VA has. It is not just the politicians and bureaucrats, ultimately it is the citizens who don't want to pay what it really costs.

C&S: Chuck Schumer Won't save you. No single politician will. All VA facilities run short of the needed operating budget to maintain facility effectiveness. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It will last as long as Chuck Schumer runs the Senate. I don't think he is going away anytime soon. You seem to have some sort of a problem with veterans getting the quality healthcare they deserve, does that bother you in some way?

No.

You seem to have a problem with reality.

Yes, yes, yes...
Your the one with the reality problem. America finally decided to take care of its veterans. That could have something to do with the ever increasing number of politicians who are veterans and served our country since 9/11. You think they are going to throw our veterans under the bus? What is really sad is that our veterans finally getting what they have earned seems to just pizz you off to no end. Suck it up buttercup!! . Maybe you should complain to Chuck Schumer?? He helped to make this happen. To pizz you off even more, Chuck helped get the federal dollars to upgrade the VA hospital in Canandaigua, NY. If you ever visited one of these facilities perhaps even an angry FLP liberal like yourself would have a different understanding. Sadly compassion and understanding what these veterans gave to our country doesn't exist in your wheelhouse. FTR does the 100s of millions being spent to improve Walter Reed also pizz you off as well?

... I have visited more than half of the VA Hospitals in this country and probably half as many outpatient clinics. I feel very confident that I have seen many more VA facilities than you have, both brand spanking new and those in very poor shape, on their last legs.

[jhu72]

"Free" market wizardry sure does a great job of curing cancer:



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VoTMOdI9adk/T ... +tumor.gif



It's time to stop with the "free" market idiotology and come up with a universal health care package for all.

The problem with that cartoon is that it represents what socialized medicine already looks like in the USA....its called the VA.

Oops, we already of what so many are pandering for, and its evident it does not work any better, may been worse than what we already have.

The VA isn’t properly funded. That’s it. That’s the problem. If it was, they’d get whatever is needed, full stop. No red tape. Just show your ID—-and get what you need. Instead? You get a system that’s designed to say “no” because they don’t have money. Bet they waste hundreds of millions to have processors paid to say “no, you can’t prove this happened on the battlefield.”

Wanna see real socialist care? UMichigan. UMaryland. UCLA—-all government medical personnel. Best care in the world. But as I’ve said 1,000 times ——fake conservatives think “that doesn’t count as socialism “. Sorry, it counts.

The VA is finally getting it right. I guess after the sacrifice of so many of our young people they are stepping up big-time. I went to the new VA facility on Caulkins Rd in Rochester last fall. I always thank every veteran I meet for their service. When I went into that facility with my 82nd airborne baseball cap the people that took care of me thanked me for my service. When I looked at all of the young and old veterans that day I was so grateful that our government finally started to pay back a debt to these men and women who sacrificed so much for their country. The government can get healthcare right. I don't have a link. I hope all of you look up the VA hospital on Caulkins Rd. I thought for a long time that taking care of our veterans was lip service. They finally got it right.

They didn't just finally get it right. I have been telling you for as long as these forums have existed, the VA does a really good job when funded properly. The problem today is that funding remains spotty. When a new facility is brought online it is properly funded, but as time goes by they become less effective because we don't continue funding the facility at the needed level. New facilities are always great.

You never had the privilege of having to use the old VA outpatient clinic on Westfall Rd. The place was a chithole and an embarrassment to veterans health care. They did finally get it right Dr Wizard. The desperate need for help for these veterans could finally not be ignored any longer. My primary care physician works out of the new facility on Caulkins Rd. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. The government did get it right but it did not come about easily. I enjoy using my facility, I enjoy chatting with all the veterans while we are waiting to see our doctor. All a person needs to do is look at the baseball caps these old soldiers wear on their head when they come in. The conversation follows.

... over the past 40 years I have (my company) been involved in supplying equipment and software for many dozens of new VA hospitals and clinics across the US. I am glad that they finally got around to your old VA facility. But the fact stands, what you have seen has been seen by many dozens of VA facilities in the US over the past 40 years. What you will see over the next 20 years is what has been seen by all the other VA facilities, an inability to sustain this bright shiny new facility due to insufficient operating budgets. I am sure you will avoid this because your facility and you are special.

Somehow politicians and bureaucrats never contemplate or understand Opex…the only discussions are capex. Hence my major distrust on spending (second order events in general but when any generic kid can learn to model Argus to hear DCF models for CRE projects line item by line item I don’t understand how this happens every single time where nobody was prepared for the opex)

... it is the biggest problem the VA has. It is not just the politicians and bureaucrats, ultimately it is the citizens who don't want to pay what it really costs.

C&S: Chuck Schumer Won't save you. No single politician will. All VA facilities run short of the needed operating budget to maintain facility effectiveness. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It will last as long as Chuck Schumer runs the Senate. I don't think he is going away anytime soon. You seem to have some sort of a problem with veterans getting the quality healthcare they deserve, does that bother you in some way?

No.

You seem to have a problem with reality.

Yes, yes, yes...
Your the one with the reality problem. America finally decided to take care of its veterans. That could have something to do with the ever increasing number of politicians who are veterans and served our country since 9/11. You think they are going to throw our veterans under the bus? What is really sad is that our veterans finally getting what they have earned seems to just pizz you off to no end. Suck it up buttercup!! . Maybe you should complain to Chuck Schumer?? He helped to make this happen. To pizz you off even more, Chuck helped get the federal dollars to upgrade the VA hospital in Canandaigua, NY. If you ever visited one of these facilities perhaps even an angry FLP liberal like yourself would have a different understanding. Sadly compassion and understanding what these veterans gave to our country doesn't exist in your wheelhouse. FTR does the 100s of millions being spent to improve Walter Reed also pizz you off as well?

... I have visited more than half of the VA Hospitals in this country and probably half as many outpatient clinics. I feel very confident that I have seen many more VA facilities than you have, both brand spanking new and those in very poor shape, on their last legs, and everything in between. Same goes for military medical centers and clinics.

[cradleandshoot]

"Free" market wizardry sure does a great job of curing cancer:



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VoTMOdI9adk/T ... +tumor.gif



It's time to stop with the "free" market idiotology and come up with a universal health care package for all.

The problem with that cartoon is that it represents what socialized medicine already looks like in the USA....its called the VA.

Oops, we already of what so many are pandering for, and its evident it does not work any better, may been worse than what we already have.

The VA isn’t properly funded. That’s it. That’s the problem. If it was, they’d get whatever is needed, full stop. No red tape. Just show your ID—-and get what you need. Instead? You get a system that’s designed to say “no” because they don’t have money. Bet they waste hundreds of millions to have processors paid to say “no, you can’t prove this happened on the battlefield.”

Wanna see real socialist care? UMichigan. UMaryland. UCLA—-all government medical personnel. Best care in the world. But as I’ve said 1,000 times ——fake conservatives think “that doesn’t count as socialism “. Sorry, it counts.

The VA is finally getting it right. I guess after the sacrifice of so many of our young people they are stepping up big-time. I went to the new VA facility on Caulkins Rd in Rochester last fall. I always thank every veteran I meet for their service. When I went into that facility with my 82nd airborne baseball cap the people that took care of me thanked me for my service. When I looked at all of the young and old veterans that day I was so grateful that our government finally started to pay back a debt to these men and women who sacrificed so much for their country. The government can get healthcare right. I don't have a link. I hope all of you look up the VA hospital on Caulkins Rd. I thought for a long time that taking care of our veterans was lip service. They finally got it right.

They didn't just finally get it right. I have been telling you for as long as these forums have existed, the VA does a really good job when funded properly. The problem today is that funding remains spotty. When a new facility is brought online it is properly funded, but as time goes by they become less effective because we don't continue funding the facility at the needed level. New facilities are always great.

You never had the privilege of having to use the old VA outpatient clinic on Westfall Rd. The place was a chithole and an embarrassment to veterans health care. They did finally get it right Dr Wizard. The desperate need for help for these veterans could finally not be ignored any longer. My primary care physician works out of the new facility on Caulkins Rd. I'm willing to give credit where credit is due. The government did get it right but it did not come about easily. I enjoy using my facility, I enjoy chatting with all the veterans while we are waiting to see our doctor. All a person needs to do is look at the baseball caps these old soldiers wear on their head when they come in. The conversation follows.

... over the past 40 years I have (my company) been involved in supplying equipment and software for many dozens of new VA hospitals and clinics across the US. I am glad that they finally got around to your old VA facility. But the fact stands, what you have seen has been seen by many dozens of VA facilities in the US over the past 40 years. What you will see over the next 20 years is what has been seen by all the other VA facilities, an inability to sustain this bright shiny new facility due to insufficient operating budgets. I am sure you will avoid this because your facility and you are special.

Somehow politicians and bureaucrats never contemplate or understand Opex…the only discussions are capex. Hence my major distrust on spending (second order events in general but when any generic kid can learn to model Argus to hear DCF models for CRE projects line item by line item I don’t understand how this happens every single time where nobody was prepared for the opex)

... it is the biggest problem the VA has. It is not just the politicians and bureaucrats, ultimately it is the citizens who don't want to pay what it really costs.

C&S: Chuck Schumer Won't save you. No single politician will. All VA facilities run short of the needed operating budget to maintain facility effectiveness. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It will last as long as Chuck Schumer runs the Senate. I don't think he is going away anytime soon. You seem to have some sort of a problem with veterans getting the quality healthcare they deserve, does that bother you in some way?

No.

You seem to have a problem with reality.

Yes, yes, yes...
Your the one with the reality problem. America finally decided to take care of its veterans. That could have something to do with the ever increasing number of politicians who are veterans and served our country since 9/11. You think they are going to throw our veterans under the bus? What is really sad is that our veterans finally getting what they have earned seems to just pizz you off to no end. Suck it up buttercup!! . Maybe you should complain to Chuck Schumer?? He helped to make this happen. To pizz you off even more, Chuck helped get the federal dollars to upgrade the VA hospital in Canandaigua, NY. If you ever visited one of these facilities perhaps even an angry FLP liberal like yourself would have a different understanding. Sadly compassion and understanding what these veterans gave to our country doesn't exist in your wheelhouse. FTR does the 100s of millions being spent to improve Walter Reed also pizz you off as well?

... I have visited more than half of the VA Hospitals in this country and probably half as many outpatient clinics. I feel very confident that I have seen many more VA facilities than you have, both brand spanking new and those in very poor shape, on their last legs, and everything in between. Same goes for military medical centers and clinics.

So you have seen and done business with all of these facilities? In all of your travels to these facilities have you ever taken the opportunity to interact or strike up a conversation with one of the veterans that served and listened to what they had to say? Or was it all just strictly business??
Maybe your business travels will take you to the new facility on Caulkins Rd in Henrietta. That would be the facility that Sen. Chuck Schumer made a reality. IMO I'm treated with care and respect by all of the staff. My last visit I had a nice conversation with a navy vet and an Air Force vet. Sharing our experience and jaw jacking back and forth is a great thing while waiting to see your doctor
Do you have any opinion on the huge money being spent to improve Walter Reed hospital?? There is no finer facility for treating traumatic injuries among service members in the world.

[Farfromgeneva]

CapEx vs. OpEx: What’s the Difference?

CapEx has a longer-term view while OpEx focuses on day-to-day business expenses

There are a variety of costs and expenses which companies have to pay in order to continue running their businesses. These costs can be one-off or they can be recurring, and it can often be challenging to keep up with all of these expenses. But how are they able to keep track of all of them?

One way is to divide them up into different categories—the most common of which are capital expenditures (CapEx) and operating expenses (OpEx). Capital expenditures are major purchases that a company makes, which are used over the long term. Operating expenses, on the other hand, are the day-to-day expenses that a company incurs to keep its business running.

Key Takeaways

Capital expenditures are a company’s major, long-term expenses while operating expenses are a company’s day-to-day expenses.
Examples of CapEx include physical assets, such as buildings, equipment, machinery, and vehicles.
Examples of OpEx include employee salaries, rent, utilities, and property taxes.
Items covered by OpEx often have a useful life of one year or less, while CapEx tends to pay for a benefit to the company for longer than one year.
Capital expenditures cannot be deducted from income for tax purposes, but operating expenses are eligible.1
Understanding CapEx vs. OpEx

Businesses have a variety of expenses, from the rent they pay for their factories or offices to the cost of raw materials for their products, from the wages they pay their workers to the overall costs of growing their business. To simplify all of these costs, businesses organize them under different categories.

The two most common categories are CapEx and OpEx. The difference between these two expenditures lies primarily in the accounting treatment of each. For business in the United States, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) often dictate how an expenditure is treated on a company’s financial statements. Therefore, a company must understand the long-term financial implications of how its reporting will be affected and how external parties may view the company’s health as a result.

There is an inherent difference in the way management may approach these two expenditures as well. CapEx is often more expensive and labor-intensive and often requires greater patience to reap rewards. OpEx is often cheaper and more flexible to incur. For many reasons, it is important to understand each type of expenditure and how a company may strategically approach either.

Capital Expenditures (CapEx)

Capital expenditures (CapEx) are purchases of significant goods or services that will be used to improve a company’s performance in the future. They include the cost of fixed assets and the acquisition of intangible assets such as patents and other forms of technology. Capital expenditures are typically for fixed assets like property, plant, and equipment (PP&E).2 For example, if an oil company buys a new drilling rig, the transaction would be a capital expenditure.

One of the defining features of capital expenditures is longevity, meaning that the purchases benefit the company for longer than one tax year.

CapEx represents the company’s spending on physical assets. The following are common examples of capital expenditures:

Manufacturing plants, equipment, and machinery
Building improvements
Computers
Vehicles and trucks
Each industry might have different types of capital expenditures. The purchased item might be for the expansion of the business, updating older equipment, or expanding the useful life of an existing fixed asset. Capital expenditures are listed on the balance sheet under the PP&E section. CapEx is also listed in the investing activities section of the cash flow statement.

Fixed assets are depreciated over time to spread out the cost of the asset over its useful life. Depreciation is helpful for capital expenditures because it allows the company to avoid a significant hit to its bottom line in the year when the asset was purchased.

CapEx can be externally financed, which is usually done through collateral or debt financing. Companies issue bonds or take out loans to fund their capital expenditures or they can use other debt instruments to increase their capital investment. Shareholders who receive dividend payments pay close attention to CapEx numbers, looking for a company that pays out income while continuing to improve prospects for future profit.

Operating Expenses (OpEx)

Operating expenses are the costs that a company incurs for running its day-to-day operations. As such, they don't apply to any costs related to the production of goods and services. These expenses must be ordinary and customary costs for the industry in which the company operates.3 Companies report OpEx on their income statements and can deduct OpEx from their taxes for the year when the expenses were incurred.4

The following are common examples of operating expenses:

Rent and utilities
Wages and salaries
Accounting and legal fees
Overhead costs such as selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A)
Property taxes
Business travel
Interest paid on debt
Research and development (R&D) expenses
Open a New Bank Account

Operating expenses are incurred through normal business operations. The goal of any company is to maximize output relative to OpEx. In this way, OpEx represents a core measurement of a company’s efficiency over time.

Accounting rules may dictate whether an item is classified as CapEx or OpEx. For example, if a company chooses to lease a piece of equipment instead of purchasing it as a capital expenditure, the lease cost would likely be classified as an operating expense. If a company purchased the equipment instead, it would likely capitalize it.

CapEx vs. OpEx

If a company makes a purchase, that purchase must be classified as a capital or operating expenditure. Sometimes this matters, while at other times, it may not. Here are the similarities and differences between the two.

Key Similarities

Both capital expenditures and operating expenses represent outlays by the company. Both are usually acquired in exchange for cash and may go through a similar purchasing process. This includes solicitation of a bid, contracting, legal review, orchestration of financial payment, and receipt of the purchase.

Both CapEx and OpEx reduce a company’s net income, though they do so in different ways. OpEx is expensed immediately, while CapEx is depreciated.

Companies can also plan for both types of expenses similarly. Though they may be tracked separately internally, each type of cost may have its own budget, forecast, long-term plan, and financial manager to oversee the planning and reporting of each.

Key Differences

Capital expenditures are major purchases that will be used beyond the current accounting period in which they’re purchased. Operating expenses represent the day-to-day expenses designed to keep a company running. Because of their different attributes, each is handled in a distinct manner.

OpEx are short-term expenses and are typically used up in the accounting period in which they were purchased. This means OpEx is more often paid for in the period when it is acquired. CapEx may also be paid for in the period when it is acquired, but it may also be incurred over a period of time if the CapEx is related to a development project. For example, the building of a new warehouse may result in 1,000 transactions over a six-month period, all of which are collectively considered CapEx.

CapEx and OpEx are reported differently, as CapEx resides on the balance sheet and OpEx resides on the income statement. This is due to the difference in their accounting treatment. In addition, the method of translating the expenditure as an expense is different. CapEx is often associated with depreciation and accumulated depreciation accounts, while OpEx is not.

CapEx vs. OpEx

CapEx
Holds long-term value or future benefit for the company

Reported as an asset

Reported on the balance sheet

Recognized as an asset through depreciation over its useful life

Usually higher dollar amounts

OpEx
Holds short-term value and little to no future benefit for the company

Reported as an expense

Reported on the income statement

Expensed immediately and not depreciated over any useful life

Usually smaller dollar amounts

What Is the Difference Between Capital and Operating Expenditures?

Capital expenditures, also known as CapEx, are costs that often yield long-term benefits to a company. CapEx assets often have a useful life of more than one year. Operating expenses (or OpEx) are costs that often have a much shorter-term benefit. OpEx is usually classified as costs that will yield benefits to a company within the next 12 months but do not extend beyond that.

Which Is Better: CapEx or OpEx?

One type of expense is not better than the other. Rather, they are simply different ways to classify costs. If a company is trying to invest in its future and wants to be most efficient with its long-term capital, it might be better for it to invest in CapEx rather than OpEx. Alternatively, if a company wants to preserve capital and maintain flexibility, it might be better off incurring OpEx instead.

What Is an Example of OpEx?

Examples of operating expenses include repairs, salaries, supplies, and rent. All of these expenses benefit the company in the short term. For example, when rent is paid on a warehouse or office, the company using the space gets the benefit of the space for a given period (i.e., one month). Because the benefit received is short, the cost is OpEx.

What Is an Example of CapEx?

Examples of capital expenditures include development of buildings, vehicles, land, or machinery expected to be used for more than one year. In these instances, all of these assets will be used long-term. When acquired, they are treated as CapEx to recognize the benefit of each over multiple reporting periods.

How Are CapEx and OpEx Reported?

CapEx is reported on the balance sheet as a capitalized asset. Most CapEx assets are depreciated over their useful life; in this manner, an expense related to the asset is recognized each year evenly over its useful life. Some CapEx, such as land, is not capitalized.

OpEx, on the other hand, is reported on the income statement and is expensed immediately. Because there is no long-term value to OpEx, it must be expensed in the period in which it is incurred. OpEx is not depreciated over its useful life, and the entire expense is recognized right away.

The Bottom Line

CapEx and OpEx represent the types of costs that a company can incur. If there’s short-term value to the cost, it’s usually treated as OpEx. If there’s long-term value, it’s usually CapEx. Each type of cost is reported differently, strategically approached differently by management, and has varying degrees of financial implications for a company.

Correction—Nov. 8, 2022: A previous version of this article misstated that the cost of goods sold (COGS) is categorized as a company's operating expenditures. The two are, in fact, separate and distinct from one another. While COGS represents any expenses directly tied to production, a company's OpEx is the category of costs that are related to its day-to-day operations.

[DMac]

Don't know where to put this but this is as good a place as any I guess.
Now why would there be ANY KIND of discussion about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbqDGJ9Jslo

[jhu72]

Interesting correlation with Parkinson disease.

[youthathletics]

Interesting correlation with Parkinson disease.

Hearing more and more about 'parasites' and all sorts of human conditions linked to them. Ivermectin to the rescue?

(i) https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/202 ... l-illness/
(ii) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382596/

[jhu72]

Interesting correlation with Parkinson disease.

Hearing more and more about 'parasites' and all sorts of human conditions linked to them. Ivermectin to the rescue?

(i) https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/202 ... l-illness/
(ii) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6382596/

... render unto the devil what belongs to the devil.

[Brooklyn]

Still awaiting tRump's health care "plan". Well, it's only been about 7 years but most of us can wait a little longer, I suppose.

[Farfromgeneva]

Sex, Drugs and Spreadsheets: Dr. Glazer Treats Wall Street’s Addiction Surge

Demand has exploded for his practice, which treats traders, fund managers and bankers who battle mental-health problems

Matt Wirz
When titans of finance get addicted to drugs and alcohol, they sometimes end up on the couch of Dr. Sam Glazer.

Dr. Glazer, a psychiatrist, treats the Wall Street set for substance abuse and other mental illnesses. Demand for services like his has ballooned since the pandemic. Glazer recently added two therapists to his now six-member practice, which treats about 200 patients at a time.

Most are traders, fund managers, investment bankers and corporate lawyers. Almost all are men who are afraid to tell their employers about their ailments, much less ask for medical leaves.

“I’ve seen a lot of people who are high functioning in the upper levels of finance who are terrified of being exposed,” said Glazer, 56. “There’s a culture of paranoia. ‘Would you want someone to manage your money who’s an identified alcoholic?’”

Mental health is becoming an area of increasing concern for health officials, doctors and lawmakers. That hit home on Wall Street in February when Thomas H. Lee, a private-equity pioneer, died by suicide. Still, topics like depression, anxiety and addiction remain taboo at many financial firms, in part because portraying perfect stability is crucial to attracting and keeping clients.

Some industries have moved to destigmatize mental health, offering paid time off and free counseling. The measures are part of a broad shift sweeping higher education, politics and professional sports, with athletes and lawmakers openly discussing their depression and anxiety.

Change has been uneven on Wall Street. Large banks like JPMorgan Chase have introduced new mental-health initiatives. Private-equity firms and hedge funds have been slower to act. Most such “alternative investment managers” are privately owned and pride themselves on being even more competitive—and paying even more—than publicly traded big-name banks.

“Addiction is a huge problem,” said Jonathan Alpert, a psychotherapist who also treats professionals in finance, as well as technology. “Asking for help is probably a little more acceptable in tech because of their focus on wellness, but Wall Street is more traditional, more ‘bust your ass and do what you need to do.’”

Some industries have moved to destigmatize mental health, but change on Wall Street has been uneven. Photo: Eric Helgas for The Wall Street Journal
Last year, the New York City chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness launched a collaborative of financial firms to raise awareness of mental health. Five banks, including Citigroup and Deutsche Bank, have signed up. Only two alternative investment firms have joined.

“I pitched dozens and dozens of firms that weren’t willing to have this conversation with competitors,” said Rachael Steimnitz, the chapter’s director of workplace mental health.

The Alternative Investment Management Association published reports and held webinars concerning mental health in 2020 and 2021 but not since, a spokesman for the trade group said. A spokeswoman for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street banks, declined to comment on the industry’s response to mental illness among workers.

About 3.6% of employees in the finance industry tested positive for drug use in 2022, up from 2.8% in 2019, according to Quest Diagnostics. That is lower than an overall median of about 4.7%, but the data could undercount finance employees. White-collar employers tend to be less likely to test for drug use.

Even as a teenager, Glazer assumed he would go into medicine, following the path of his father and later his brother. Then his mother died when he was 21, triggering his own depression, and he decided to study psychiatry.

In training, one of his first patients was a Wall Street accountant who lost his job and apartment to cocaine addiction.

“To see him get sober and turn his life around—that was very fulfilling,” Glazer said.

He started treating substance-abuse patients referred to him by other doctors. His Wall Street clientele began recommending him to their co-workers, and within a few years he was almost exclusively treating people in finance.

Annual compensation for partners at private-equity firms and hedge funds can run in the tens of millions of dollars. The money is often the problem.

When financial chieftains are riding high, some use substances and compulsive sex to amplify the feeling, Glazer said. When their fortunes sour, they do the same to avoid it. Others turn to addiction to mask the reality that achieving their goals—like launching their own fund or making $100 million—can still leave them feeling empty.

At the same time, money can keep them from asking for help: They think no one wants to hear a rich guy complain. Or when they do ask for help, they demand it be on their terms.

Early in Glazer’s career, a patient with depression and sex addiction said he was too busy to come to the psychiatrist’s office. For their first session, he sent a limo to bring Glazer to his downtown workplace.

“At first you think, ‘Wow, you’re such a special psychiatrist,’” Glazer said. “Then you realize you’re not helping the patient, you’ve become his employee.”

Glazer now practices only from his office, on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.


Glazer confronts patients with how they use substances to avoid personal relationships and emotions that cause them discomfort. Photo: Eric Helgas for The Wall Street Journal
Patients often come to Glazer after being pressured by a family member, usually a spouse.

Four of every five hedge-fund and private-equity employees are men, according to analytics company Preqin. Men are far less likely to seek mental-health treatment, with 18% of men in the U.S. receiving care compared with 29% of women, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Some patients develop addictions to deal with work stress. The Wall Street mental-health collaborative held webinars on loneliness and addiction this year, allowing even senior executives to talk about their struggles.

“They create a safe space to have a dialogue,” said Marie Suesse, global head of human capital at Värde Partners, an alternative credit-fund manager in the group. “Participating helped set the tone internally that it’s OK to step forward and say ‘I’m struggling with this.’”

Some never relapse. Many stay in treatment and only rarely fall back into harmful behaviors. Others try to recover but slip deeper into addiction, losing their families, their careers and sometimes their lives. Glazer, who charges $700 per 45-minute session, declined to disclose how many of his patients achieve long-term recovery.

Fear of being recognized and outed keeps many financial bigwigs from 12-step groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, Glazer said. Still, he urges patients to attend.

Alcohol dependence is the most common condition Glazer treats, while widespread addiction to other substances ebbs and flows, he said. Cocaine, infamously tied to Wall Street in the 1980s, fell out of favor but has become more common again and often coincides with sex addiction, he said.

Misuse of the stimulant Adderall took off in the pandemic after the government made it easier to get a prescription through a telehealth appointment. Many have leaned on the drug to meet expectations that they be constantly on-call and to relieve the isolation of working from home.

To help patients, Glazer must first coax them to accept “that addictions are a brain disease and it’s more powerful than they are,” he said.

That accomplished, he confronts patients with how they use substances to avoid personal relationships and emotions that cause them discomfort.

Successful patients build safety nets among friends, or even colleagues, that they can turn to when addiction flares. Roughly half of financial firms have help for employees able to ask for it, Glazer said.

“If you can find a place where you can talk openly about something so stigmatized and be accepted as a good person…I don’t think there’s anything better,” he said.

Write to Matt Wirz at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

[Farfromgeneva]

Satan explaining addiction

https://youtu.be/B29YStCYorY

[youthathletics]

Satan explaining addiction

https://youtu.be/B29YStCYorY

Probably just need some adrenochrome

[jhu72]

Interesting correlation with the development of cancer.

[Farfromgeneva]

Interesting. Haven’t formed an opinion on it yet but effort being made in this direction is generally a positive.

FDA urges development of cocaine and meth addiction treatments

Jason Millman
The Food and Drug Administration is encouraging drugmakers to develop treatments for stimulant use disorder, hoping to address a major gap in the addiction crisis response.

Driving the news: There aren't any approved treatments to help address addiction to cocaine, meth or prescription stimulants, whose use has surged in recent years — often in combination with opioids.

Draft guidance issued Wednesday reflects FDA's current thinking on clinical trial design and considerations throughout the drug development process. FDA noted there are opportunities for "more person-centered" trials with greater sensitivity to detecting a treatment's effect.
The agency acknowledged there are "a number of uncertainties" about the best approaches for treating stimulant use disorder or evaluating responses to treatments.
It also said there is such a wide range of symptoms that it could be difficult to identify which medications are effective for cocaine or meth — or stimulant use more broadly.
Among other considerations, the agency recommended clinical trial sponsors separately study people who use cocaine, meth and prescription stimulants to improve the odds of developing successful treatments.

FDA said it's open to other measures of a treatment's effectiveness besides abstinence from drug use.
For instance, measuring days of nonuse may reflect "meaningful improvement" and may be more practical than other ways of establishing benefit, the guidance reads.
It also said some treatments may be eligible for FDA's expedited approval pathways for addressing a major unmet medical need.
FDA "strongly" recommended that trial sponsors provide behavioral treatment to all trial participants.
What they're saying: "When finalized, we hope that the guidance will support the development of novel therapies that are critically needed to address treatment gaps," Marta Sokolowska, deputy director for substance use and behavioral health in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

[runrussellrun]

Who control$, or regulate$ the drug advertisement$, the FCC, the FDA....or the FTC ?

We understand that "weight loss" drug$ can cause thoughts of suicide.....and of course rectal, or ANAL...seepage ....and other side effects....but, the covid drug, fake shot approved by tRump......and the boo$ter$.......just ask your doctor.

Interesting rules adherence......what do our chat room lawyers have to say about it.

back to ignore.....THIS......is a conversation web place ffuffg

[Farfromgeneva]

Health insurance costs near $24K after big jump this year: survey

Tina Reed
Data: KFF, BLS; Chart: Axios Visuals

The average cost of workplace health insurance premiums for family coverage reached nearly $24,000 this year, jumping 7% from 2022, according to the latest annual KFF survey of employer-sponsored coverage.

Why it matters: After a few years of largely flat growth, inflation appears to be driving a steady uptick in health care costs. Employers, facing a tight labor market, are trying to limit how much of those costs they pass on to workers.

What they're saying: "It's just an incredible amount of money to spend on health insurance every year," said KFF health insurance expert Matthew Rae, who co-authored the report.

By the numbers: Workers on average contributed $6,575 toward the cost of family coverage — up about $500 from last year — while employers kicked in $17,393, according to the KFF survey of more than 2,000 large and small employers conducted during the first half of this year.

The average cost of an individual plan was $8,435, with the employee contribution averaging $1,401 — similar to last year.
Zoom in: While premiums for family coverage rose 7%, wages grew about 5.2% on average and inflation rose 5.8% last year.

The jump in health costs "is absolutely being driven by inflation," Rae said.
Higher expenses for health care providers increase health costs for employers, which is leading to higher premiums, he said.
Yes, but: Average deductibles stayed largely the same in recent years, hovering around $1,735. That continues a five-year stretch of relatively flat deductible growth following years of steady hikes, and it likely reflects employers' concerns about whether workers can afford care.

The thinking goes, Rae said: "We're spending $24,000 on these health benefits. We might as well make sure our employees can use it."
Between the lines: Despite a large amount of attention on how employers cover abortion following the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, only 32% of large employers said they cover abortion in most or all circumstances, while 18% said they cover it in limited circumstances such as rape, incest or health endangerment.

Only 7% said they provide financial assistance for employees to travel out of state to receive an abortion.
Employers also indicated concerns about building networks that include enough mental health providers amid heightened demand for services. The vast majority of large firms said they felt confident their workers could access primary care, but only 67% said there were sufficient numbers of mental health providers.
About 1 in 5 large said they took steps last year to increase the number of in-network mental health providers.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Health insurance costs near $24K after big jump this year: survey

Tina Reed
Data: KFF, BLS; Chart: Axios Visuals

The average cost of workplace health insurance premiums for family coverage reached nearly $24,000 this year, jumping 7% from 2022, according to the latest annual KFF survey of employer-sponsored coverage.

Not sure why health insurance is still tied to employment in 2023.

And don't get me started on small business insurance offerings. It's mind bogglingly stupid and expensive. And your employees generally don't comprehend or understand just how much you're paying. And if you don't offer insurance yet pay them extra? They complain. Want to give them cash to help pay for an ACA plan? They have to technically report that and their monthly credit is reduced by that amount. And if you do offer them cash to help out with a wink wink on the d/l? They pocket it, don't buy insurance, then complain when they have issues. And if an employee jumps ship to a competitor that offers insurance (mostly because it was a shorter commute)? And you ask them how much they're contributing, what the details are regarding their plan? They have no clue. We literally have a manager sit down with prospectives to show them how to get insurance in the marketplace and how stupidly cheap it usually is compared to anything we could offer.

Not sure why the small business lobbies aren't the loudest group calling for a single payer option or other reform.