Did You Know That Medicare Needed an 'Anti-Racism Plan'?
Also: Inflation vs. deflation, Reddit files for IPO, and no more standardized tests
Good morning and welcome to our new subscribers! Here are a few knuckleballs to keep you on your toes on this lovely Sunday.
If someone sent you this email, they’re telling you to sign up. You can do that here:
Did you know that Medicare needed an ‘Anti-Racism Plan’?
Neither did I. Not until I read this article from Aaron Sibarium at The Washington Free Beacon, that is.
The Biden administration will offer bonuses to doctors who "create and implement an anti-racism plan" under new rules from the Department of Health and Human Services, a move meant to update Medicare payments to "reflect changes in medical practice."
Effective Jan. 1, Medicare doctors can boost their reimbursement rates by conducting "a clinic-wide review" of their practice's "commitment to anti-racism." The plan should cover "value statements" and "clinical practice guidelines," according to HHS, and define race as "a political and social construct, not a physiological one"—a dichotomy many doctors say will discourage genetic testing and worsen racial health disparities.
The "rationale" for the bonus, the new rules read, is that "it is important to acknowledge systemic racism as a root cause for differences in health outcomes between socially-defined racial groups."
You could argue over whether race is a political and social construct or a physiological one until the cows come home, but why would you? Why does it matter? In terms of medical practices, I mean.
Who raised their hand and said, “what the healthcare industry really needs is more virtue-signaling!”? Is this necessary, or is it a half-baked initiative to alleviate some misplaced sense of white guilt?
And what about the doctors who are trying to warn that this “will lower standards of care and endanger lives by discouraging vital genetic testing” (an obvious outcome, IMO)?
I tip my hat to the ones who had the balls to go on record to say so. Opposing an “anti-racism plan”? In this climate? That takes major cojones! The rest will probably fall in line begrudgingly (even those who quietly disagree) because it’s social and professional suicide to be on the wrong side of a delusional minority these days. Also, it literally pays to fall in line now under this policy.
Clinics can also boost their reimbursements by implementing "a Trauma-Informed Care Approach to Clinical Practice," which seeks to "avoid re-traumatizing or triggering past trauma." That includes "multi-generational trauma, whereby experiences that traumatized earlier generations, such as the genocide of Native American tribes, are passed down" to subsequent generations. In 2018, the New York Times science section called the evidence for multi-generational trauma "circumstantial at best," saying it "falls well short of demonstrating that past human cruelties affect our physiology today."
Anyone with a brain knows that the genocide of Native American tribes was a horrific atrocity. It’s so obvious that this qualifying sentence shouldn't even be necessary, but it's 2021 so there you have it.
Having said that, AYFKM1? This not only assumes that this multi-generational trauma exists (evidence suggests it does not), but that there are ways to avoid it (and those ways must be implemented post-haste!).
What would these practices even look like? I would love to get my hands on a copy of one of these value statements, practice guidelines, or whatever virtue-signaling device is used to project this misguided ideology. First page:
"Rule #1: don't mention 1942".
I bet the Women's March wouldn't have made the Earth-shattering mistake of mentioning the numbers 1-4-9-2 in that order if they had a monetary incentive not to, as medical clinics will under Biden's Medicare!
Today, American liberalism wants to tell you not that America can be a place of justice and equality where we all work together for the good of all, even as we acknowledge how badly we’ve failed that ideal. In 2021 liberalism wants to tell you that the whole damn American project is toxic and ugly, that every element of the country is an excuse to perpetuate racism, that those groups of people Hayes lists at the bottom are not in any sense in it together but that instead some fall higher on an hierarchy of suffering, with those who are perceived to have it too good in that hierarchy deserving no help from liberalism or government or the Democratic party - and, oh by the way, you can be dirt poor and powerless and still be privileged, so we don’t want you, especially if you’re part of the single largest chunk of the American electorate.
TL;DR: Under Biden’s new Medicare rules doctors will receive bonuses for virtue-signaling.
Inflation vs. deflation: who ya got?
Unless you live under a rock you know that inflation is running hot. Prices increased 6.8% YoY in November which is the highest rise since 1982.
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve announced it would accelerate the pace of tapering (read: pump less money into the economy) and signaled 3 interest rate hikes for next year. Back in September, most Fed officials predicted 0 rate increases in 2022, but that was back when we were still allowed to call inflation “transitory”.
Meanwhile (on Pluto, apparently), Cathie Wood — who became a household name for retail investors after her ARK funds dominated 2020 — is zigging while everyone else is zagging, saying we shouldn’t be worried about inflation at all. Instead, she’s pounding the table on deflation, saying that will be the greatest risk to the economy and the markets in 2022.
She explains her thesis here, but the super simple, dumbed-down Contemporary Idiot summary is that “technology is deflationary by nature”.
This is true in the long-term, but I don’t see how A.I. training costs declining 60% per year is going to bring down bacon prices (+19.3% YoY!) next year. Or how the costs associated with every cumulative doubling in the number of the whole human genomes sequenced with long-read technologies dropping 28% is going to somehow make DollarTree reverse their decision to sell items for $1.25 instead of $1.00 as their name implies.
Then again, I’d probably be singing the same tune if I were her:
I think Cathie is wrong here, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t admire her conviction.
FXHedge @FxhedgersCATHIE WOOD SAYS INNOVATION STOCKS ARE IN 'DEEP VALUE' TERRITORY
TL;DR: Inflation is probably going to be around for a little while.
The home of WallStreetBets will soon be available for purchase by members of WallStreetBets.
Reddit, the social media platform that served as the birthplace for this generation’s savviest (very liberal use of the word here) investors, has confidentially filed for an initial public offering (IPO).
Back in January, the now-infamous r/WallStreetBets (WSB) subreddit fueled the historic short squeeze on GameStop (a shit company at best) stock that pushed the price as high as $483 per share. The stock had been trading under $5 just 6 months earlier.
Since then, WSB has grown to over 11M “degenerates” who have participated in countless other coordinated market attacks against the “hedgies” (hedge funds).
A quick scroll through the subreddit and you’ll find everything from shitpost (mostly) to incredible due diligence (like the guy who caught the Affirm x Amazon deal before it happened).
There’s also tons of “Won/Loss Porn” — a leading cause of FOMO3.
Reddit had 50M daily users in January (before the $GME squeeze) and posted $100M in revenue for the first time in Q2 (nearly tripled YoY). The company filed confidentially which means we don’t have a ton of insights into the business yet, but it was most recently valued at $10B in a funding round led by Fidelity in August 2021.
So will the WSB crowd buy the IPO in 2022? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It doesn’t look like they’re terribly excited about what it could mean for the actual platform though:
TL;DR: If WSB gets a hold of Reddit stock the way they did with GameStop or AMC, we’ll have officially come full circle.
The best way to get into Harvard used to be to have good SAT scores and to be a legacy. Now, you just need to be a legacy.
If you happen to be an 8th grader reading this, first of all: go outside every once in a while. Second: congratulations. Harvard is dropping its requirement for SAT or ACT scores for future applicants, which means all you have to do to get into the country’s most prestigious university is make sure at least 50% of your DNA comes from an alumnus.
I’m pretty sure the intent of this policy is to even the playing field? To create more of that “diversity, equity, and inclusion” that’s all the rage at academic institutions these days? I don’t see how this helps that cause at all. In fact, I would argue that this does the opposite.
In high school, 4.0 GPAs are impressive, sure, but they’re a dime a dozen. Why would you sterilize a perfectly good way for students to further demonstrate their abilities on top of a simple grade point average? Which by the way, can more easily be manipulated than a standardized test.4
I know that I personally wanted to take the SATs and ACTs because I looked at it as a more tangible way of measuring my ability — more so than the GPA. To me, it was an opportunity to set myself apart from the rest of the pack. Anyone could get a 4.0, but not everyone could do well on the SAT and ACT. It was a way to measure myself against the rest of the country’s students on a level playing field (we’re all taking the same test).
It turns out I wasn’t as smart as I thought, but I did do well enough to where my scores actually made a difference in my admission — my grades alone would’ve looked just like everyone else’s. Without those tests, I wouldn’t have gotten into the school (not Harvard) I can proudly call myself an alumnus of today.
Unless one of my parents went there, of course.5
So if we’re assuming the goal is, as I said, to create more “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, then this policy fails miserably. Instead, it’s eliminating a way for kids whose parents didn’t go to Harvard to show admissions “hey, I may have not been born on third base, but I can still play with the best of ‘em”.
TL;DR: Harvard admissions is going from a combination of meritocracy & politics to just politics.
AYFKM = Are You Fucking Kidding Me
Freddie deBoer is a self-identified “Marxist of an old-school variety”, so this quote coming from him should speak to how out of touch with reality many on the left are.
FOMO = Fear Of Missing Out
This isn’t to say I don’t think GPAs are important. On the contrary, they are excellent indicators of many things, not the least of which is work ethic. But a GPA can be inflated by so many factors (easy classes, easy teachers, cheating, the absence of impartiality, etc.) that its effectiveness as a measure of academic ability is limited, IMO.
They did not.