Switch Theme:

Obama's debt reduction plan:  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Oklahoma City, Ok.

halonachos wrote:Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.

Now why don't I want to pay for more care, well I kind of do, its called Medicare and Medicaid and more people need to start using it.

Now with the country's that relate incomes, I think Switzerland does. I'm trying to figure out what the policy is called and trying to find out if others do it.


As a parent, and a clumsy person, I can damn well tell you E.R. visits are WAY expensive, period. don't kid yourself.

"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC

"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC

 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Oh yes they are. Broken bones? Well, they're going to run a few dozen tests. Hope you have your insurance ready!

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

You can't be turned away from an ER unless you've seen a doctor and they turn you away or else you can sue the hell out of them.

You break your leg, go to the ER, its an Emergency after all and it can't be prevented by the hospital. What's that, you have insurance, then you can pay the hospital back. What's that, you don't have insurance, well your leg is fixed but you probably won't get any care after that.

I was also saying that Emergency Care isn't always the most expensive way to treat something. I guess I should've made it clearer by saying that sometimes its the only way to get care. Child birth is an emergency, broken bones are an emergency, getting shot is an emergency. And guess what, you won't be turned down for not having a way to pay because hospitals are legally obligated to provide care that if not given would cause further harm.

If you have insurance you schedule appointments for treatment and care, if you have an emergency its an unexpected appointment and you will have to pay for it. But saying that going to an ER to get a bone placed is more expensive than going in to get your check up, well duh. It costs time and money for both, but is a tongue depressor and thermometer cover more expensive than the materials they use to cast a broken bone? Emergency medicine is usually more expensive than an appointment to the local general practitioner.

@Melissia, that's a huge assumption to make. Doctors will usually assign tests that are needed and sometimes undercode just to get the insurance company to pay for it without much of a hassle. You see, insurance companies don't like to pay for what they don't have to and will fight doctors over tests. When I was in the ER I only got what I needed test wise, when my brother broke his pinky he got an x-ray and got it cast. When he broke his toe, same deal. When I dislocated my knee they gave me an X-ray and gave me several options and guess what, instead of recommending a more expensive knee-replacement they said I was young enough that is they just cleaned up the broken cartilage it should be fine.

The assumption that doctors will always perform more tests than necessary is absurd and blown out of proportion.
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

biccat wrote:
I'm saying that Republicans do know what Communism is.


When a state own the means of production it doesn't have to force people to pay for the misfortune of others, it simply does it of its own accord. Unless you're postulating indirect payment, in which case the mere fact that people suffer misfortune forces all of us to pay for it in some regard (if we take, at least, the cost of disposing of corpses); regardless of the economic system being considered.

But thanks for illustrating my point.

Melissia wrote:I'm not even sure half of them know what capitalism is (hint: we don't practice anything but a heavily watered down version).


Well, we're definitely a capitalist nation with some socialism thrown in for flavor.

Besides, the general talking point isn't "Yay capitalism!" its "Yay free market!" which is good deal more nebulous.

halonachos wrote:
Hospitals provide emergency care and can bill the patient if they have health insurance, in some cases they can't bill the patient(for example illegal immigrants) and as such the hospital uses money that it later tells the government it spent and is compensated for it usually.


This is also wrong. First, with the exception of undocumented patients (mostly illegals), all people who receive emergency care are billed; whether or not they have insurance is not a factor. Second, hospitals are not compensated for emergency care they give to those patients who are unable to pay, in fact its considered a major problem of the medical system by many analysts.

sebster wrote:
A hospital is just as free to bill an illegal immigrant as they are any other patient. The fact that an illegal immigrant has no money means the hospital rarely gets anything from them, like most other poor people.


The issue is usually finding them after treatment. Emergency patients aren't generally billed at time of service.

sebster wrote:
I would go so far as to say most people don't know what communism is. It's weird, but communism just seems like one of those things that everyone wants to have an opinion on, but that hardly anybody feels like they should actually learn anything about it first.


I agree with that. I was mostly just making a joke.

halonachos wrote: I don't mind seeing a salary cap on CEOs of companies that are under government aid, in fact Congress is mulling it over although that probably won't happen because most of the politicians we have are corrupt pricks who need to leave office to make way for fresh blood.


That's just populist boilerplate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
The assumption that doctors will always perform more tests than necessary is absurd and blown out of proportion.


The argument isn't that they always will do so, the argument is that they have an incentive to do so.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 03:51:19


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

dogma wrote:
This is also wrong. First, with the exception of undocumented patients (mostly illegals), all people who receive emergency care are billed; whether or not they have insurance is not a factor. Second, hospitals are not compensated for emergency care they give to those patients who are unable to pay, in fact its considered a major problem of the medical system by many analysts.


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=597112244

Boom! C-Span backs me the hell up on this one.

Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.



dogma wrote:
The argument isn't that they always will do so, the argument is that they have an incentive to do so.


No, Melissia was making a gross assumption about emergency care.
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





halonachos wrote:Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.


Sure, there are circumstances where only having emergency treatment is best. Across a whole country though, having more things treated early and preventing them from getting worse works out on the whole a lot cheaper than waiting until a condition is life threatening and needs emergency care.

This means, very simply, that denying preventative care but granting absolute access emergency care costs the US far more than it saves. Which in turn means that expanding access to preventative care will produce a net saving.

Now with the country's that relate incomes, I think Switzerland does. I'm trying to figure out what the policy is called and trying to find out if others do it.

Denmark has a pay-limit scheme, but I don't think that's it.


Fair enough, I didn't know that. Thanks.

Still, having schemes in two such countries still doesn't account for the US having the lowest social mobility of any developed country, though, does it?

It was a chart in an old book I had that described pay incomes in relation to each other where the lowest paid employee was paid a percentage of what the highest paid employee was. Also, America once had a salary cap for CEO's and that was during the second world war IIRC. I don't mind seeing a salary cap on CEOs of companies that are under government aid, in fact Congress is mulling it over although that probably won't happen because most of the politicians we have are corrupt pricks who need to leave office to make way for fresh blood.


The US actually has a cap on executive pay, believe it or not. Of course, it's trivially easier to get around, as it's only for salary and doesn't include bonuses. Which means if you want to pay someone $10 million, you just give him $1 million in salary and include a $9 million bonus in his contract if the share price remains above $0.01.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:You see, insurance companies don't like to pay for what they don't have to and will fight doctors over tests.


You realise those fights cost money? Lots of money, especially when the thing gets dragged to court.

Over here we have private insurers, but they're not for profit companies. This means there's no incentive for the company to save money by denying care. As a result, exactly what you can and can't access becomes a much more straight forward manner, and what we pay in hospital administration is nothing like what you see in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.


Yes, but not because of anything in legislation that says they can't be billed. Instead, it's for the very practical reason that the hospital can't get money off someone who doesn't have any (and as dogma pointed out someone they likely can't find afterwards).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 04:13:10


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

sebster wrote:
halonachos wrote:Emergency care isn't always the most expensive, especially when you have overdose or inadvertent reactions to drug use is unpreventable through hospital means.


Sure, there are circumstances where only having emergency treatment is best. Across a whole country though, having more things treated early and preventing them from getting worse works out on the whole a lot cheaper than waiting until a condition is life threatening and needs emergency care.

This means, very simply, that denying preventative care but granting absolute access emergency care costs the US far more than it saves. Which in turn means that expanding access to preventative care will produce a net saving.


It is cheaper, but like I said we do have agencies and government programs that do try to take care of the working poor and etc. Medicaid and Medicare are aimed at helping the poor based on finances or disability or age. People don't utilize those programs we already have, so why bother making another government program that would do the same these two programs are. If we scrap medicare and medicaid and replace it with just one program that covers them all then sure I'll go for it, but no we want three different programs to do the same damn thing.

Close loopholes and we're all good, but I still believe in a consumption task because I believe everyone should contribute even if its a little. Hell if a poor guy gives ten cents to the programs that are supposed to help him out I would be happy. As far as why we aren't as mobile as other countries, I don't know. If our taxes is less progressive than other nations then we should technically have better class progression, maybe it has something to do with something besides our economic policies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.


Yes, but not because of anything in legislation that says they can't be billed. Instead, it's for the very practical reason that the hospital can't get money off someone who doesn't have any (and as dogma pointed out someone they likely can't find afterwards).


To quote dogma, that wasn't the argument, the argument was that hospitals are not(by that I guess he means never) compensated for uninsured patients who go the ER and cannot pay back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/22 04:18:08


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





halonachos wrote:No, Melissia was making a gross assumption about emergency care.


It's a very straight forward piece of game theory. When a person gains a benefit from a thing but doesn't bare the cost, he will tend to over-use that thing.

Every time a doctor treats a patient, he faces a slight risk of complaint about his treatment of the patient. This could range from something as minor as negative feedback to malpractice. The more extensive his treatment of the patient, the more that risk reduces.

The problem is the doctor doesn't suffer any of the costs of the treatment he diagnoses. This leads to a tendency for that doctor to tend towards more caution, so that he might authorise an expensive test even though the chance of it revealing anything was very small.

This is a problem every health system faces. What is needed to minimise this issue is a very healthy relationship between medical providers and the insurance sector. Unfortunately, in the US, due in large part to the highly exploitative behaviour of the insurance companies, this relationship is extremely disfunctional. The end result is a mess of decision making, in which over-prescription of medication drives the US system to be vastly more expensive than any other system, and denial of treatment drives it to be among the worst performing.

What's needed is a new economic system to make that relationship far more functional.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Assault Kommando





Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:Opinions?


This thread will be filled by lots of liberal handwringing, attacks against Republicans, and cries thats its all Bush's fault. Obama will be hailed as a living saint, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or alternatively a commie pinko socialist hellbent on destroying the US. Biccat will counterattack and get flamed. Frazzled will post nonsense or something about wiener dogs. Dogma will argue about word choices. Cannerus may or may not post about important matters of the heart, and motorcyle repair. If Malf posts, lots of socks will mysteriously disappear.

But then again this is more of a prediction than an opinion isn't it.

Edit: already zoinked by Biccat/halo/Melissia. I must be getting slow.


Holy Crap, I have never seen anything in the OT as funny as this. I know I am getting into it late, but ROFLMAO.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





halonachos wrote:It is cheaper, but like I said we do have agencies and government programs that do try to take care of the working poor and etc. Medicaid and Medicare are aimed at helping the poor based on finances or disability or age. People don't utilize those programs we already have, so why bother making another government program that would do the same these two programs are. If we scrap medicare and medicaid and replace it with just one program that covers them all then sure I'll go for it, but no we want three different programs to do the same damn thing.


Yeah, a single base line level of care provided for everyone is the way to go. One program that everyone has access to. From there you can give incentives for people to go and get their own private insurance.

Close loopholes and we're all good, but I still believe in a consumption task because I believe everyone should contribute even if its a little. Hell if a poor guy gives ten cents to the programs that are supposed to help him out I would be happy.


Over here in Australia when we brought in Medicare that covered everyone, government brought in a medicare levy of 1.5% of your annual income, which is waived if you earn less than $18,000. Then there's a surcharge of another 1% of your income if you earn more than $77,000 but haven't gotten your own private insurance.

It isn't perfect (it nowhere near covers the cost of healthcare) but it's a good start. I think the most important part is that there is a baseline that says your condition won't be left untreated,

As far as why we aren't as mobile as other countries, I don't know. If our taxes is less progressive than other nations then we should technically have better class progression, maybe it has something to do with something besides our economic policies.


It's a big question, and giving a satisfying answer would probably put someone pretty close to a Nobel prize. I think it's probably down to a few factors, massive differences in public schooling quality which are pretty directly tied to the level of wealth in a region, a very high cost for tertiary education making it much harder to gain a tertiary education without parental support, and very low rates of pay at the bottom end of the scale, making it much harder for people to improve their skills or capital base while working minimum wage positions.

Substantiating any of that, let alone of it would be near impossible, though.

halonachos wrote:To quote dogma, that wasn't the argument, the argument was that hospitals are not(by that I guess he means never) compensated for uninsured patients who go the ER and cannot pay back.


Was it? I thought it was about the claim that illegal aliens didn't have to pay for their care.

Hmm, same old problem with bulletin board conversations - lots of discussions going on at once.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

halonachos wrote:
Boom! C-Span backs me the hell up on this one.

Disproportionate Share Hospitals are compensated because they see a greater number of uninsured patients as opposed to insured ones and would fail if they relied only on the income they receive from the insurance holding patients.


No, that's also incorrect. DSH status is determined according to a metric based on either, or a combination of, those patients who are treated while on Medicare or Medicaid; and patients classified as disabled who are on neither. It has nothing to do with ability to pay, despite what the political rhetoric entails.

Additionally, DSH payments are not tied to any particular service rendered, they are calculated categorically.

halonachos wrote:
No, Melissia was making a gross assumption about emergency care.


No, she was being hyperbolic, as she is wont to do. She's also not entirely wrong, as "stabilized" is a wonderful term to argue over in the course of a malpractice suit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Close loopholes and we're all good, but I still believe in a consumption task because I believe everyone should contribute even if its a little. Hell if a poor guy gives ten cents to the programs that are supposed to help him out I would be happy.


Why did we invent this "morality" nonsense? It seems like such a mistake now.

halonachos wrote:
As far as why we aren't as mobile as other countries, I don't know. If our taxes is less progressive than other nations then we should technically have better class progression, maybe it has something to do with something besides our economic policies.


Culturally, we love our college degrees, but they are quite expensive; and generally seen as the primary path up the economic ladder.

Hell, my former boss made me post a job listing for a receptionist with a minimal requirement of a BA.

halonachos wrote:
To quote dogma, that wasn't the argument, the argument was that hospitals are not(by that I guess he means never) compensated for uninsured patients who go the ER and cannot pay back.


They aren't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/22 05:10:33


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

halonachos wrote:@Melissia, that's a huge assumption to make.
No, it's fairly safe.

You see, Halonachos, doctors have to worry about missing anything. Because if they do they'll get sued. Or have their insurance rates raise. Or, more likely, both. So they cover all their bases. Which means a veritable barrage of tests, or at least a few extra they wouldn't run if they didn't have to worry about these things.

Any time ANYONE comes in with a broken bone, for example, no matter WHERE that broken bone is, they'll do some kind of scan of the patient's skull, because just because the patient doesn't know it yet doesn't mean they don't have a head injury. And of course, they might also run other tests (blood tests, urinalysis, etc) to make sure you don't have any internal damages-- they almost never just look for the broken bone (and when they do there's usually outside reasons for them to do so, and even then it's usually merely a delayed test).

This isn't hyperbole, or guessing, or assumptions. This is fact. Almost all emergency care locations will do these kinds of tests. In fact, you could probably ask most emergency care doctors about this and they'd agree with me. They want to cover their asses. I can't blame them for it-- that's how the system works right now.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 12:01:47


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

Melissia wrote:Any time ANYONE comes in with a broken bone, for example, no matter WHERE that broken bone is, they'll do some kind of scan of the patient's skull, because just because the patient doesn't know it yet doesn't mean they don't have a head injury. And of course, they might also run other tests to make sure you don't have any internals-- they almost never just look for the broken bone (and when they do there's usually outside reasons for them to do so).


That is completely false. I've broken a couple of bones and taken a football and accident prone son in for 3-4 broken bones and not once was some head scan done.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

CptJake wrote:That is completely false.
Then you didn't go to emergency care.

Certainly when I went to my doctor after spraining my ankle (over a decade ago now) they only ran the tests my family asked for, IE, an x-ray of my ankle to make sure it was or wasn't broken. But that wasn't emergency care.

If it WAS emergency care and they didn't even try to find skull or neck injuries on a child, they'd be liable as all hell in court if one cropped up. Sometimes even if the injury wasn't there when the child came in. Cover Your Ass is an extremely important concept in the medical industry.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 12:10:54


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

Bull crap. Went to the ER every single time, 4 different hospitals (we've moved a few times...)

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Then those hospitals were risking being sued. If your kid had a neck injury you didn't know about and they didn't check it, and then became effected by it, they were liable, and you could sue their pants off. Or even if the neck injury happened somewhere down the line, they could possibly even be sued then even if the injury didn't happen before the kid was put in their hospital (after all if they had checked they might have noticed a hairline or some other symptom that would have warned you-- and therefor they were partially responsible).

Certainly not practices that any of the Dallas/Fort Worth hospitals would want to have, what with the litigious nation we're in... hell even nurses here are taught CYA.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 12:17:39


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch





dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm saying that Republicans do know what Communism is.

When a state own the means of production it doesn't have to force people to pay for the misfortune of others, it simply does it of its own accord. Unless you're postulating indirect payment, in which case the mere fact that people suffer misfortune forces all of us to pay for it in some regard (if we take, at least, the cost of disposing of corpses); regardless of the economic system being considered.

But thanks for illustrating my point.

And where does the State (that is the bureaucratic entity that governs the economy) receive the resources to do so?

The only place a government, whether socialist, communist, totalitarian, democratic, or other, is from the economic output of the people it governs. The only way to get that economic output in a communist state (where the government owns the means of production) is through directing people to labor for the benefit of others. When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.

Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.

text removed by Moderation team. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

biccat wrote:Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.
Does that mean that the US is communistic? Because certainly there's what basically amounts to economic slavery in the US.

Of course, you may want to simply reword yourself and be more specific

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

Melissia wrote:Then those hospitals were risking being sued. If your kid had a neck injury you didn't know about and they didn't check it, and then became effected by it, they were liable, and you could sue their pants off. Or even if the neck injury happened somewhere down the line, they could possibly even be sued then even if the injury didn't happen before the kid was put in their hospital (after all if they had checked they might have noticed a hairline or some other symptom that would have warned you-- and therefor they were partially responsible).

Certainly not practices that any of the Dallas/Fort Worth hospitals would want to have, what with the litigious nation we're in... hell even nurses here are taught CYA.


Whatever.

Bottom line, some hospitals do a slew of tests they don't need to. Not all hospitals do a head scan because you come in with a broken bone. Universal statements like the one you made are rarely true.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Right, because generalizations are never right.

Which is why you should never make the statement that running across a highway is a bad idea, amirite?

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





In your base, ignoring your logic.

Melissia wrote:
halonachos wrote:@Melissia, that's a huge assumption to make.
No, it's fairly safe.

You see, Halonachos, doctors have to worry about missing anything. Because if they do they'll get sued. Or have their insurance rates raise. Or, more likely, both. So they cover all their bases. Which means a veritable barrage of tests, or at least a few extra they wouldn't run if they didn't have to worry about these things.

Any time ANYONE comes in with a broken bone, for example, no matter WHERE that broken bone is, they'll do some kind of scan of the patient's skull, because just because the patient doesn't know it yet doesn't mean they don't have a head injury. And of course, they might also run other tests (blood tests, urinalysis, etc) to make sure you don't have any internal damages-- they almost never just look for the broken bone (and when they do there's usually outside reasons for them to do so, and even then it's usually merely a delayed test).

This isn't hyperbole, or guessing, or assumptions. This is fact. Almost all emergency care locations will do these kinds of tests. In fact, you could probably ask most emergency care doctors about this and they'd agree with me. They want to cover their asses. I can't blame them for it-- that's how the system works right now.


I worked with several emergency care doctors and they only test for what is necessary. If you're skateboardinng, fall, and break your leg then they're going to scan your skull to see if you have any bleeding on the inside of your skull. Its the same with people who were found laying down in the street, the doctors don't know why they were just laying there and more importantly they don't know how they got there so they scan the brain again to check for hemorrhaging. Now as far as urinalysis goes, that's for patients who have a broken bone but have no idea why they have a broken bone and no one around was able to give the doctor a history of events leading up to the broken bone. If you into the doctor's office with a broken toe and tell them that it got hit with a baseball and that caused it to break then they give it a quick x-ray and get you on your way out.

Like I said, I have worked in an ER and I am also friends with various ER techs, nurses, and EMT's and they never test unless its something they need to test for. Hell if a diabetic comes into the emergency room and he was found alone in his house on the floor he will be given two tests, one MRI for his head and a blood test to see his blood sugar. They won't do urinalysis on him unless they think it to be necessary, but if the root cause of him falling to the ground and being unconscious is hypoglycemia then they give him some sugar and that's that.

You see Melissia, doctors also have to worry about not getting paid for their services. A medical journal published findings saying that the majority of doctors undercode(meaning they charge for a cheaper procedure even though they did the more expensive one) because its a hassle to get money from insurance companies for more expensive procedures even if they were necessary. Doctors aren't some kind of money vampire that drains a person's insurance because they need it Melissia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Right, because generalizations are never right.

Which is why you should never make the statement that running across a highway is a bad idea, amirite?


Sometimes the highway is empty and its easy to get across.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/09/22 13:35:43


 
   
Made in us
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch





Melissia wrote:
biccat wrote:Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.
Does that mean that the US is communistic? Because certainly there's what basically amounts to economic slavery in the US.

Of course, you may want to simply reword yourself and be more specific

I don't need to reword myself to be more specific because we don't have "economic slavery" here in the U.S. Nor do we have anything even remotely approaching it.

text removed by Moderation team. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

Sometimes the alternative to crossing (staying put) is worse than the risk of crossing...

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

biccat wrote:
And where does the State (that is the bureaucratic entity that governs the economy) receive the resources to do so?


Itself of course. Communism is state ownership of the means of production, at its most basic level.

biccat wrote:
The only place a government, whether socialist, communist, totalitarian, democratic, or other, is from the economic output of the people it governs. The only way to get that economic output in a communist state (where the government owns the means of production) is through directing people to labor for the benefit of others.


It doesn't have to be for the benefit of others.

In any case, all economic actors derive their output from the people they "govern". The only variable in terms of directorial power is ownership.

biccat wrote:
When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.


You're assuming they were his in the first place.

biccat wrote:
Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.


Strawman. You claimed that Communism was any instance in which people were forced to provide a benefit to the unfortunate, I said that was incorrect. Now you're trying to dodge the point by claiming that doing so is a condition of Communism (but apparently not Communism itself). My point, that Republicans generally don't know what Communism is, stands quite nicely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
I don't need to reword myself to be more specific because we don't have "economic slavery" here in the U.S. Nor do we have anything even remotely approaching it.


And yet Republicans know what Communism is....

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 14:28:49


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch





dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.

You're assuming they were his in the first place.

They are. Absent some outside force or compulsion, a person is free to do with his time what he wants in the manner he wants. You might feel differently, but it is at odds with the basic theory of liberty and individualism. Once you assume that a person's life is the property of the state you've accepted the basic premise of tyranny.

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Economic slavery is a necessary condition of Communism. This is what most right-thinking people understand.

Strawman. You claimed that Communism was any instance in which people were forced to provide a benefit to the unfortunate, I said that was incorrect. Now you're trying to dodge the point by claiming that doing so is a condition of Communism (but apparently not Communism itself). My point, that Republicans generally don't know what Communism is, stands quite nicely.

No, economic slavery is not an inherent component of Communism, but it is a necessary result of Communism. Without the authority and ability to compel people to act in the interest of the state rather than their own interests, Communism fails. This is why Communist states tend to be totalitarian.

The inherent component of Communism is providing for the interest of others at the expense of your own interests. Because the only way to create this type of activity is through force or compulsion, it is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to force or compel you to work for the benefit of another is a Communist.

text removed by Moderation team. 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:When a person's time, labor, or earnings are taken from him and not freely given, then that person is "forced" to provide a benefit.

You're assuming they were his in the first place.

They are. Absent some outside force or compulsion, a person is free to do with his time what he wants in the manner he wants. You might feel differently, but it is at odds with the basic theory of liberty and individualism. Once you assume that a person's life is the property of the state you've accepted the basic premise of tyranny.



Just purely theoretically, who can prove that individualism is right?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

biccat wrote:
They are. Absent some outside force or compulsion, a person is free to do with his time what he wants in the manner he wants. You might feel differently, but it is at odds with the basic theory of liberty and individualism.


No, its at odds with the theories of liberty and individualism that underpin liberalism, but those aren't "basic" by any means. They might be your preference, but that's not relevant.

biccat wrote:
Once you assume that a person's life is the property of the state you've accepted the basic premise of tyranny.


And?

biccat wrote:
No, economic slavery is not an inherent component of Communism, but it is a necessary result of Communism.


No it isn't. Everyone might go along willingly. Likely and necessary are not the same thing.

biccat wrote:
Without the authority and ability to compel people to act in the interest of the state rather than their own interests, Communism fails.


The interest of the state and the interest of the individual do not have to be distinct, if they did not form of organization (government or otherwise) would be viable. If we're speaking only to governance, even democracy fails without the capacity to compel individuals in terms of state interests.

biccat wrote:
The inherent component of Communism is providing for the interest of others at the expense of your own interests.


That's inherent to all forms of government.

biccat wrote:
Because the only way to create this type of activity is through force or compulsion....


So you're forced to serve your daughters' interests?

biccat wrote:
...it is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to force or compel you to work for the benefit of another is a Communist.


No, wrong, absolutely. Even per your argument such a state is only a precondition of Communism. It takes a long draw of bow to reach the next step of your argument.

Unless you would argue that, say, feudalism and communism are the same thing. In which case, well...you need to read more.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Oh, biccat, but economic slavery DOES exist. The only difference is that instead of the government owning your labor, it's the business you work for owning it.

And these days frequently you can't labor for anyone else because there's no jobs available elsewhere. And your own labor without a business is often worth nil. So it's effectively the same situation in all but name.

Heck, with non-compete clauses and other malarkey hidden in job contracts, you're often even legally compelled to either work for that company or not work at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Besides, the general talking point isn't "Yay capitalism!" its "Yay free market!" which is good deal more nebulous.
Thing is, free market is only really good when it's properly regulated.

Humans are bastards, they cheat and lie o get money. Not every human no, but you never want the ones that do to get into a position of unregulated power.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2011/09/22 15:21:39


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

halonachos wrote:
Melissia wrote:According to his own words, he doesn't actually have his own accountant to manage his taxes. Dunno if that's true, but he did say such in an interview.
Frazzled wrote:It means you've talked on the internet to anonymous posters who may or may not even be human.
Right. As we all know, Frazzled for example is a sentient wiener dog.


True, Frazzled is a sentient wiener dog, but he's a kind and slightly angry wiener dog.


More angry than sentient.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Warplord Titan Princeps of Tzeentch





dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:Because the only way to create this type of activity is through force or compulsion....


So you're forced to serve your daughters' interests?

Nope, I do it by my own free will.

dogma wrote:
biccat wrote:...it is reasonable to assume that someone who wants to force or compel you to work for the benefit of another is a Communist.


No, wrong, absolutely. Even per your argument such a state is only a precondition of Communism. It takes a long draw of bow to reach the next step of your argument.

Unless you would argue that, say, feudalism and communism are the same thing. In which case, well...you need to read more.

The inherent difference between Feudalism and Communism, at least for purposes of this conversation, is that Feudalism isn't invoked to "help others." It is a self-serving, top-down theory of governance. Communism, on the other hand, is a bottom-up theory that enslaves those who will work for the benefit of those who won't.

Melissia wrote:Oh, biccat, but economic slavery DOES exist. The only difference is that instead of the government owning your labor, it's the business you work for owning it.

I'm not aware of any businesses that own a person's labor, or who don't give value in exchange for that labor. If you do, perhaps you should report them to the local authorities.

text removed by Moderation team. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: