<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: estimate</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'estimate'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22estimate%22&t=%22estimate%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:51:28 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>What if We Ran a Public School System… and No-One Came?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4605811&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCaR3KL4Cuhc%2F</link>
            <description>By Andrew J. CoulsonThe New Jersey Office of Legislative Services, which estimates the budgetary impact of proposed laws, has just released its analysis of a private school choice bill called the &quot;Opportunity Scholarship Act.&quot; The most remarkable thing about its report is the amount of money it assumes that districts would save for each student they no longer have to teach: $0.
On that assumption, if every student were to leave for the private sector tomorrow, districts would keep right on spending exactly the same amount they spend today. Inefficient though it is, not even state-run monopoly schooling is that bad.
The OLS report does not explain why it assumes that the per pupil savings for students leaving public schools (the &quot;marginal cost&quot;) would be $0. It states that this figure is &quot;i...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4605811</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:16:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4605811</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Divided Government on Afghanistan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4265697&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F5SZqy57TsNA%2F</link>
            <description>By Doug BandowThe Obama administration apparently plans to issue a positive Pentagon review of the war in Afghanistan.  Alas, this assessment evidently is not shared by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Reports the New York Times:
As President Obama prepares to release a review of American strategy in Afghanistan that will claim progress in the nine-year-old war there, two new classified intelligence reports offer a more negative assessment and say there is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border.
The reports, one on Afghanistan and one on Pakistan, say that although there have been gains for the United States and NATO in the war, the unwillingness of Pakistan to shut down militant sanctuaries in its lawless tribal region rem...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4265697</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 14:21:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4265697</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Many Licks?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3463630&amp;cid=t_158824_107_f&amp;fid=36672&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencebase.com%2Fscience-blog%2Fhow-many-licks.html</link>
            <description>The idea of carrying out a Fermi estimate sounds like something that only nuclear physicists would be able to do with any degree of success, but a Fermi estimate, or Fermi problem, is nothing more than an approach to estimating numbers that cannot be counted. For instance, how many grains of sand on a beach? How many Jelly Beans in a bag? And, how many licks will it take to finish off that lollypop?
University of Michigan post-doctoral researcher Aaron Santos shows you how to &amp;#8220;estimate damn near anything&amp;#8221;. Every day we make simple estimations of all kinds of things, about time, distance, numbers, probabilities, Santos offers you the tools to make the most of the estimation skills most of us have the mental faculty to undertake.
Fermi problems? Nothing more than an informed esti...</description>
            <author>Sciencebase Science Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3463630</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:00:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3463630</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Senate Bill Would Increase Health Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3358963&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FcTe5RcfvNgw%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonEzra Klein quotes the Congressional Budget Office&amp;#8217;s latest cost estimate of the Senate health care bill when he writes:
&amp;#8220;CBO expects that the legislation would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following 2019,&amp;#8221; which is to say that this bill will cover 30 million people but the cost controls will, within a decade or so, leave us spending less on health care than if we&amp;#8217;d done nothing.  That&amp;#8217;s a pretty good deal. But it&amp;#8217;s not a very well-understood deal.
Indeed, because that&amp;#8217;s not what the CBO said.
First, the CBO said the &amp;#8220;federal budgetary commitment to health care&amp;#8221; would rise by $210 billion between 2010 and 2019 under the Senate bill.  Then, after 2019, it w...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3358963</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:53:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3358963</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Hopelessly Stupid Politics of the Iran NIE</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3185312&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FOJNbqAT9JDM%2F</link>
            <description>By Justin LoganThe Washington policy establishment is now pulsing with excitement over news that the intelligence community (IC) is revising its 2007 statement that &amp;#8220;We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons&amp;#8221; and that this halt &amp;#8220;lasted at least several years.&amp;#8221;
Funny story: The day the NIE came out, Ted Carpenter and I were arriving in Los Angeles to give at talk at the LA World Affairs Council on Iran.  Immediately on our deplaning, the questions started coming: &amp;#8220;What do you think about the NIE?  How does this change things?&amp;#8221;  &amp;#8220;What NIE?&amp;#8221; I asked.
So amid our last ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3185312</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:09:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3185312</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Our System of Government Exists to Prevent This Kind of Thing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3100777&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F4mhO-j_eh9Y%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThe Hill&amp;#8217;s Congress Blog asks, &amp;#8220;Will the Senate pass a health care reform bill before it adjourns for the year?&amp;#8221;
I answer:
It’s not looking good – nor should it.
The Reid bill becomes less popular with each passing day.  (So too does President Obama’s handling of health care.)
CBS News is reporting that Reid wants to hold a vote before Christmas because he doesn’t want senators to go home and hear from their constituents.
Reid has been systematically suppressing a complete cost estimate of his bill.
Reid’s manager’s amendment will make unknown, countless, and dramatic changes to that 2,074-page bill – and Reid wants to vote on it before anyone knows what those changes are.
Even Max Baucus admits that not a single senator understands the ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3100777</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:01:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3100777</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Cost Estimate Watch: Day #180</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3092674&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKJKti0Mgo5Q%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonOn Day #179 of the ObamaCare Cost Estimate Watch, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) wrote in The Winchester Star of his involvement in the Senate health care debate:
At the start of this debate I was one of eight senators who called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to post the text and complete budget scores of the health-care bill on a public web site for review at least 72 hours prior to both the first vote and final passage. This request was agreed to, affording proper transparency in the process.
On the contrary, as I explain in this Richmond Times-Dispatch oped, Reid did not comply with Webb&amp;#8217;s request.
Indeed, a memo recently issued by the Congressional Budget Office suggests that Reid has been working very hard to conceal the legislation&amp;#8217;s full cost all along....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3092674</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:43:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3092674</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Recapping the Costs of the REAL ID Revival Bill</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2923236&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKY3gAJpeA5U%2F</link>
            <description>In late July, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed a new version of PASS ID, the REAL ID revival bill. I&amp;#8217;ve posted about various dimensions of it: the national ID question, the politics of PASS ID, whether PASS ID protects privacy, a run-down of the Senate hearing on it, and the inexplicable support of the Center for Democracy and Technology for this national ID law.
Three months later, the committee still has not reported the bill, meaning that the public doesn&amp;#8217;t get access to the version the committee passed. (A resolution in the House would require committees there to publish amendments to bills within 24 hours.) But the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill this week. That is often a signal that legislation is on the move.
So it&amp;#821...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2923236</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:38:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2923236</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Baucus Bill Would Cost More than $2 Trillion</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2876020&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FE0X1L4H-IWA%2F</link>
            <description>Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) health care overhaul would cost more than $2 trillion.  It would expand the deficit.  But he has carefully and methodically hidden those facts – so well that he has completely hoodwinked nearly all the major media.
The media are reporting that the Baucus bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.  Wrong.
The Baucus bill assumes that Congress will allow the “sustainable growth rate” cuts in Medicare’s physician payments to occur beginning in 2012.  Yet Congress has routinely and repeatedly blocked those cuts, making Baucus’s assumption preposterous.  The CBO handled the issue delicately, but essentially said, “Sure, provided that the sun rises in the west in 2012, then yes, this bill would reduce the deficit.”
That means Baucus ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2876020</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:34:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2876020</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NYT Nonsense on SAFRA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2803894&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fx-wmoGX3J4Q%2F</link>
            <description>With the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) likely to be voted on by the full House or Representatives today, the media is finally giving some space to debate over the bill. Unfortunately, the New York Times only pays attention to the parts it likes, writing in an editorial today that:
The private lenders and those who do their bidding in Congress have recently taken issue with a Congressional Budget Office analysis that showed that the bill would save about $87 billion over the next 10 years.
They argue, absurdly, for example, that the savings would be smaller if the system were analyzed under accounting rules other than the ones that the federal government is required to use. The aim is to mislead taxpayers and members of Congress into believing that the C.B.O. estimate...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2803894</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:29:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2803894</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Full House to Vote on Lie of a Bill</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2796411&amp;cid=t_158824_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlTYyk-wTNWQ%2F</link>
            <description>The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) is expected to head to the full House of Representatives for a vote tomorrow, and as it does there is yet another Congressional Budget Office estimate upping its expected cost. The bill that sponsor George Miller (D-CA) shamelessly says will be a taxpayer-money saver continues to be exposed as very much the opposite.
As you might recall, Miller has been touting SAFRA as legislation that would fund all kinds of new or expanded federal programs while allocating $10 billion to deficit reduction. But the CBO has never agreed with that. First, the CBO identified a likely net cost to taxpayers of about $6 billion over ten years, and that was without including any deficit reduction. Then it estimated that SAFRA would cost an additional ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2796411</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:24:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2796411</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Note to self: Genetic risk is an estimate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1951970&amp;cid=t_158824_131_f&amp;fid=34989&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FGeneticsHealth%2F%7E3%2FiBEQ6gEpCqQ%2F</link>
            <description>I chanced upon this article - Genetic testing under the microscope - in the Los Angeles Times of an interview with the President of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Angela Trepanier, and she presents an interesting perspective on the future of personalized medicine. 
In the near future, Trepanier says that genetic testing will become a routine part of healthcare. Right now, access to one&amp;#8217;s genetic information can be had for at least $400, and one is able to find out which diseases and conditions your genetic makeup may be association with. But the company doesn&amp;#8217;t offer any medical opinion or diagnosis, obviously. Trepanier asks rhetorically, &amp;quot;If your only source of information is the company selling the test, is that really the most credible source of informatio...</description>
            <author>Genetics and Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1951970</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:03:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1951970</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

