I'm so angry with the U.S. and Chinese governments right now!

[highfigh]

I've heard of using coffee grounds in rub, but I've never tried it myself. I say give a try, then report back on the results. What rub are you presently using? I generally use rub recipes from here: http://virtualweberbullet.com/best-ribs-in-the-universe-by-mike-scrutchfield.html

I don't know how cold it has to be for wood not to burn, but I'd prefer not to experience it. It was -3 degrees Celsius when I started and it's +3 right now. Couple more hours to go...

It was below 0F here, so ~-18C where you are.

It was -20F a few weeks ago and I had to go out both days and it really wasn't that bad, but I didn't need to STAY out. After the second day, it went to +47F.

I use Chili powder as the base, then add Cayenne, ground Mustard, Cumin, Cinnamon, ground Clove, Nutmeg, Coriander, Kosher salt, ground black pepper, plenty of Paprika- mild and hot, garlic powder and Chinese 5 spice powder. It made about a cup, total and it's not scientific, at all-

about 1/2c chili powder,
1/2 tsp Cayenne
1-1/2 tsp Ground Mustard
2T Sharp Paprika
1T Mild Paprika
1/2 tsp Kosher Salt
1/2 tsp freshly ground black pepper
1T Cumin
1/2tsp Nutmeg
1tsp Cimmamon
1tsp Coriander
1/2 tsp ground Clove
1 tsp Garlic powder.

I save spice containers with the cap that allows using it as a shaker or taking the spice out with a spoon- I add the spices to the container, put the cap on to shake it, then shake it onto the meat before rubbing it in. Let it sit for half hour and put it in a covered container @275 for about 1.5 hours/pound. The last time, it took 5 hours, so 3-1/2 pounds is a good guess. If it needs more time, so be it. Super tender, moist and gone.

 

[highfigh]

I would love to try this, except that I live in an apartment

Do you have a porch?

 

[Trell]

Do you have a porch?

It is not allowed due to fire hazard.

Edit: Sorry to be so abrupt, but I gave a slightly more expansive response below.

 

[Trell]

Yeah...your neighbors might not be happy about that.

Yeah, after the paramedics, firefighters, police, judges and other interested parties. On the other hand a good smoked piece of ham can make wonders to a stew, so that will have to do for me.

 

[Irvrobinson]

But, isn't the health care insurance industry the reason health care costs are so high? THEY'RE the ones who deny coverage, not the providers. THEY'RE the ones who offer far less to the care providers who then need to raise the amount they charge for that care. They charge a lot less if someone doesn't have insurance and make arrangements or pay cash.

The insurance industry negotiates better rates from providers in their networks. They're better rates than you are offered individually, paying cash or not. I've seen "settlements" negotiated with hospitals, but mostly you do worse on your own.

I agree that insurance companies are mostly just expensive overhead in the health care process, but in the end it's really providers and drug companies that need managing. Hospitals also complain that those who do pay have to finance care they must legally provide to those who can't pay. The drug companies go after "value pricing", which means there's purposely no relationship between costs and prices. Many manufacturing companies do this, but I suppose it annoys everyone most when human welfare is involved. Especially onerous, IMO, are the middlemen in the drug industry supply chain. They really exist because drug companies don't want to deal with hundreds of thousands separate customers, but the middlemen add a lot of margin to the prices, I've read.

I do agree that it's the insurance companies are the ones that deny coverage, and make it as difficult as possible to get reimbursed. I'm not sure what the best answer is, but Medicare's specific rules are what is covered and what's not, and there's a lot that isn't, is why there's a big industry in supplemental Medicare coverage policies.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You seem like an open minded guy

I often am open-minded, but I have strong opinions about how the EU functions, and I'm not impressed.

 

[Trell]

I often am open-minded, but I have strong opinions about how the EU functions, and I'm not impressed.

You made it very, very clear that you have strong opinions, but with respect, you come off as narrow minded in your post.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You made it very, very clear that you have strong opinions, but with respect, you come off as narrow minded in your post.

That's because I've already formed an opinion, and no one here, including you, has convinced me to change it.

 

[Trell]

That's because I've already formed an opinion, and no one here, including you, has convinced me to change it.

It's not like you make much room for us to think we could change your mind on anything, come hell or high water

 

[Irvrobinson]

It's not like you make much room for us to think we could change your mind on anything, come hell or high water

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

And if the US changes its system to be less market-driven and more centrally controlled it will have multiple effects on the pharmaceutical market in the rest of the world. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[highfigh]

The insurance industry negotiates better rates from providers in their networks. They're better rates than you are offered individually, paying cash or not. I've seen "settlements" negotiated with hospitals, but mostly you do worse on your own.

I agree that insurance companies are mostly just expensive overhead in the health care process, but in the end it's really providers and drug companies that need managing. Hospitals also complain that those who do pay have to finance care they must legally provide to those who can't pay. The drug companies go after "value pricing", which means there's purposely no relationship between costs and prices. Many manufacturing companies do this, but I suppose it annoys everyone most when human welfare is involved. Especially onerous, IMO, are the middlemen in the drug industry supply chain. They really exist because drug companies don't want to deal with hundreds of thousands separate customers, but the middlemen add a lot of margin to the prices, I've read.

I do agree that it's the insurance companies are the ones that deny coverage, and make it as difficult as possible to get reimbursed. I'm not sure what the best answer is, but Medicare's specific rules are what is covered and what's not, and there's a lot that isn't, is why there's a big industry in supplemental Medicare coverage policies.

They negotiate rates because the care providers know the insurers will try to pay as little as possible. As far as cash, I have heard of people being given meds when the co-pay would be very expensive and Drs, clinics and hospitals have lots of drugs for cases like that- better to give the meds away than have the patient not take anything. My dad was just about inconsolable after my mom passed and the Dr gave him just about all the Prozac he could swallow. Whether it was billed back, I don't know but he just reached into a drawer to get the packets. As I have posted before, many hospitals have endowments and funds for people who don't have the money for their treatment, often bequeathed by people who have been treated there.

 

[highfigh]

Yeah, after the paramedics, firefighters, police, judges and other interested parties. On the other hand a good smoked piece of ham can make wonders to a stew, so that will have to do for me.

Baked, it was great. I sometimes have a problem if the wood is too acrid- meat smoked with Mesquite doesn't sit well with my stomach and almost nothing bothers it. If I smoke, I usually use White Oak, Maple or Cherry- I'm a woodworker and have plenty of scraps. If I run out of those, I have at least 50 board feet of each. I think I like a good spice rub better than smoke, anyway. If I do use a sauce, it's usually Stubb's and if I don't have enough of that, I'll use Asian sauces, like Sweet Chili mixed sauce with Hoisin, Teriyaki or just mix my own.

 

[Irvrobinson]

They negotiate rates because the care providers know the insurers will try to pay as little as possible.

No, the hospitals and doctors negotiate group rates for insurance companies (and self-insurance large companies) because they know being left out of one the major networks can cost them a lot of revenue overall. Due to a friend, I get an insider's view of the process and it is quite adversarial. As I've experienced multiple times in the past, the best medical coverage is from large companies that are self-insured, and the insurance companies are just administrators. When you're actually spending an insurance company's money more claims are denied. Sometimes I think it really is like in the movie "The Rainmaker", where SOP is to first deny every claim. ;-)

 

[lovinthehd]

No, the hospitals and doctors negotiate group rates for insurance companies (and self-insurance large companies) because they know being left out of one the major networks can cost them a lot of revenue overall. Due to a friend, I get an insider's view of the process and it is quite adversarial. As I've experienced multiple times in the past, the best medical coverage is from large companies that are self-insured, and the insurance companies are just administrators. When you're actually spending an insurance company's money more claims are denied. Sometimes I think it really is like in the movie "The Rainmaker", where SOP is to first deny every claim. ;-)

Having worked with a variety of insurance carriers for marine insurance, rather than health, the SOP sounds about right. Deny until you're forced into it. Documentation requirements could be tough in some cases. Our health insurance industry is just plain ol' fucked up.

 

[Trell]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

And if the US changes its system to be less market-driven and more centrally controlled it will have multiple effects on the pharmaceutical market in the rest of the world. Be careful what you wish for.

You mean like far cheaper health care with better outcome that the rest of the Western world already have? Why not just ditch the libertarian derp?

 

[Irvrobinson]

You mean like far cheaper health care with better outcome that the rest of the Western world already have? Why not just ditch the libertarian derp?

I'm not a libertarian, but I do advocate personal responsibility. However, I think government can be an instrument of good, so that disqualifies me as a libertarian.

How do you define "better outcomes"? And which country are you comparing to the US? (Please don't bring up any examples with a population of less than 50 million, because those countries are more like US cities or states than the US as a whole.)

 

[GrimSurfer]

I'm not a libertarian, but I do advocate personal responsibility. However, I think government can be an instrument of good, so that disqualifies me as a libertarian.

How do you define "better outcomes"? And which country are you comparing to the US? (Please don't bring up any examples with a population of less than 50 million, because those countries are more like US cities or states than the US as a whole.)

I agree with Irv, especially on the latter point about country population. You could also add landmass to the equation too, as this drives up the cost of public infrastructure and administration.

Russia fits conveniently into this frame, but is more an example of failure than success (making it a uselessly low comparison). The UK's population and area is simply too small. Germany has a greater population but its land area is still too small.

Canada, with the Germany's population, would be of the scale where a reasonable comparison could be made. But this is not reality.

Brazil might be the closest, but many wouldn't like this as a comparison because it doesn't support the thesis that America is broken...

Even after considering all this, Canada and the US score essentially the same on the UN Human Development Index. This is remarkable, given the immensely larger population of the US.

 

[Old Onkyo]

It's all partisan politics... paying people off with their own money, pork barrelling, using public office to advance private interest, exploiting international crises as a distraction for domestic issues.

Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty. They both use brand loyalty as a cover for misdeeds.

The quicker voters ditch party affiliations and vote on the basis of record and policy, the quicker we'll see the county get better.

I can’t “like”this enough!!!!

 

[Irvrobinson]

Just some facts to consider. I got many of them from:

https://www.kff.org

At first I didn't trust that link, because it's the family foundation of a health care empire, but I cross-checked some of the facts with US gov sources, and they appeared to be quite accurate. I liked the KFF site better only because the information is much better organized.

So... it would appear that the Medicare and Medicaid programs currently cover 135 million people at a cost of ~$1.3T. (It does seem weird to round to the nearest $100 billion dollars, but whatever.)

The Veterans Administration provides benefits to another 9 million people:

https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/Quickfacts/Homepage_slideshow_06_04_16.pdf

https://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp

At a cost of $200B.

So there are currently about 144 million US citizens covered by government healthcare at a cost of about $1.5T. The current estimated population of US citizens is 328 million, so the covered group is 44% of the population. (Some people get supplemental coverage for Medicare, but that's only about a $30B industry, and I'm including rounding errors greater than that, so I'm ignoring it.) I figure the currently covered fraction of the population is probably unhealthier than US citizens on average, due to the nature of the before-listed programs, so the incremental cost of covering everyone will probably be lower per capita.

The private health insurance industry had revenues of about $840B in 2017, covering 176 million people, making the private companies look more efficient than the government, but I suspect a lot of this coverage is inadequate. So let's fudge the whole thing and say that covering everyone in the US under Medicare and Medicaid would just double government healthcare spending to $3T, with a budget gap of about $800B, assuming you confiscated all private premiums and put the private insurance companies out of business in this sector. Let's also assume that the insurance companies employees who were unemployed would find jobs with the USG and states, so the net unemployment would be irrelevant in this discussion as a budget factor.

$800B is significantly bigger than the total US defense budget, and I probably underestimated everything, especially first-year costs.

Medicare for All looks like it needs a massive overall national spending increase at the Federal level. But I'm sure the Europeans and the Canadians will be in full support of it! ;-)

 

[GrimSurfer]

People are generally supportive of other people spending money.