RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 12:41:04 PM)
This is what happens when you let government get the tiniest foothold into anything; in this case: medicine. Big Brother will know everything about everyone and your DNA, fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, sexual history, illnesses will all be in a (hackable) database, somewhere. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 1:03:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Will they also have a code for discussing the weather and if the person owns firearms? If it appears on the bill - it'll have a code and some of them will be very specific. When I was a programmer for a private medical group, every single item had a specific code - right down to who did what/when/why and how long it took; even the type of box the pills came from had a code...thousands upon thousands of billing codes. And...time is billable and I'm guessing that time spent on each subject during the visit will be broken down to its constituent minutes. How else do you think they can produce stats to say how much time consultants/doctors/nurses spent with each patient doing whatever?? Quite simply... if it's billable, it will have it's own billing code. This is one of the fundamental reasons why private medical insurance (as opposed to single-payer systems) rob the individual's privacy to a certain degree. If the insurance company doesn't want to pay for certain consultations or time spent on non-urgent medical discussions, they deduct lumps off the bill being claimed.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 1:05:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Big Brother will know everything about everyone and your DNA, fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, sexual history, illnesses will all be in a (hackable) database, somewhere. You don't think they don't know all this already??? [:D]

Sanity -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 1:32:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr This is what happens when you let government get the tiniest foothold into anything; in this case: medicine. Big Brother will know everything about everyone and your DNA, fingerprints, footprints, palm prints, sexual history, illnesses will all be in a (hackable) database, somewhere. Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me? Even after the widely publicized IRS abuses, and Soviet-era and Nazi-era persecutions etc, leftists, as a general rule, can't see beyond their noses and cannot fathom why such things could possibly ever become an issue

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 1:34:59 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, do you know the difference between a hex head cap screw and a bolt? Not only do you not know what you are talking about but you are also full of shit. Neither bolt nor screw is a physical thing. Bolt and screw are methods of fastening. http://engineerexplains.com/answr/Screw-vs-Bolt1.html The words "bolt" and "screw" are ambiguous. Bolt or screw is not a physical thing; it is a matter of how a physical thing is used. However, there are those who have set about trying to define these words as precise engineering terms. The very nature of the common English use of these words renders that impossible. They further set themselves up as the ultimate authority on the meaning of these two words and chide accepted official standards for not adopting their “authoritative” definition. Acceptable standards such as The Machinery's Handbooki, the various government and military parts standards, and ASMEii parts standards are among the typical standards we as engineers rely on.

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 1:43:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Will they also have a code for discussing the weather and if the person owns firearms? If it appears on the bill - it'll have a code and some of them will be very specific. When I was a programmer for a private medical group, every single item had a specific code - right down to who did what/when/why and how long it took; even the type of box the pills came from had a code...thousands upon thousands of billing codes. And...time is billable and I'm guessing that time spent on each subject during the visit will be broken down to its constituent minutes. How else do you think they can produce stats to say how much time consultants/doctors/nurses spent with each patient doing whatever?? Quite simply... if it's billable, it will have it's own billing code. This is one of the fundamental reasons why private medical insurance (as opposed to single-payer systems) rob the individual's privacy to a certain degree. If the insurance company doesn't want to pay for certain consultations or time spent on non-urgent medical discussions, they deduct lumps off the bill being claimed. And the government (single payer) doesn't rob the individual of privacy. It is better for the government to have everything on an individual in one place than to have in scattered where it might be hacked? Trust big brother.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 1:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And the government (single payer) doesn't rob the individual of privacy. Generally, as far as medical practices go, no they don't. Just as an example, doctors and consultants are paid for looking after X number of patients on their books regardless of how often or how long they see them for. They don't have individual billing for insurance companies like in private medicine. Hence, there are no billing codes to account for so it doesn't matter what is discussed between doctor and patient. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is better for the government to have everything on an individual in one place than to have in scattered where it might be hacked? Trust big brother. Each practice has their own computer systems as well as each area of our NHS. Very few of them are linked together and there is certainly not a single database.

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:04:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And the government (single payer) doesn't rob the individual of privacy. Generally, as far as medical practices go, no they don't. Just as an example, doctors and consultants are paid for looking after X number of patients on their books regardless of how often or how long they see them for. They don't have individual billing for insurance companies like in private medicine. Hence, there are no billing codes to account for so it doesn't matter what is discussed between doctor and patient. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is better for the government to have everything on an individual in one place than to have in scattered where it might be hacked? Trust big brother. Each practice has their own computer systems as well as each area of our NHS. Very few of them are linked together and there is certainly not a single database. So trust big brother

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:06:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And the government (single payer) doesn't rob the individual of privacy. Generally, as far as medical practices go, no they don't. Just as an example, doctors and consultants are paid for looking after X number of patients on their books regardless of how often or how long they see them for. They don't have individual billing for insurance companies like in private medicine. Hence, there are no billing codes to account for so it doesn't matter what is discussed between doctor and patient. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is better for the government to have everything on an individual in one place than to have in scattered where it might be hacked? Trust big brother. Each practice has their own computer systems as well as each area of our NHS. Very few of them are linked together and there is certainly not a single database. So trust big brother Nope. I'd sooner trust my GP/consultant than I would ANY insurance company - and it's shitloads cheaper! [:D] ETA: Unlike a national police or driver license database, there isn't a "big brother" in single-payer medical systems.

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:09:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And the government (single payer) doesn't rob the individual of privacy. Generally, as far as medical practices go, no they don't. Just as an example, doctors and consultants are paid for looking after X number of patients on their books regardless of how often or how long they see them for. They don't have individual billing for insurance companies like in private medicine. Hence, there are no billing codes to account for so it doesn't matter what is discussed between doctor and patient. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It is better for the government to have everything on an individual in one place than to have in scattered where it might be hacked? Trust big brother. Each practice has their own computer systems as well as each area of our NHS. Very few of them are linked together and there is certainly not a single database. So trust big brother Nope. I'd sooner trust my GP/consultant than I would ANY insurance company - and it's shitloads cheaper! [:D] ETA: Unlike a national police or driver license database, there isn't a "big brother" in single-payer medical systems. So they just pour money into it with no accounting.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So they just pour money into it with no accounting. There IS accounting - on a "per patient" level. You really can't grasp this concept at all can you? Just like Desi and a few others. Each doctor is paid a certain amount per year per patient as a fixed annual salary. What they discuss with their patients or how long they spend with them has no bearing on what they are paid so it's irrelevant what they chat about. They don't have to account for every minute spent with them or deal with insurance claim/billing codes like private medicine does because they are paid for each patient on the books, not how long or how often they see them. The same sort of system is employed for hospitals - they are paid a fixed amount per year and each hospital budgets what they get from the government. Obviously they keep a track of what they spend and on what resources. But unlike private medicine, they don't have to account for every single minute spent on every patient by each doctor/nurse or whatever because as long as they get costs within budget, it really doesn't matter because they aren't billing insurance companies for their time or use of resources.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:25:15 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD So trust big brother Dude if you so despise and distust the government of my country why the fuck do you live here?

eulero83 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD So trust big brother Dude if you so despise and distust the government of my country why the fuck do you live here? maybe because he would not get a carry permit anywhere else

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So they just pour money into it with no accounting. There IS accounting - on a "per patient" level. You really can't grasp this concept at all can you? Just like Desi and a few others. Each doctor is paid a certain amount per year per patient as a fixed annual salary. What they discuss with their patients or how long they spend with them has no bearing on what they are paid so it's irrelevant what they chat about. They don't have to account for every minute spent with them or deal with insurance claim/billing codes like private medicine does because they are paid for each patient on the books, not how long or how often they see them. The same sort of system is employed for hospitals - they are paid a fixed amount per year and each hospital budgets what they get from the government. Obviously they keep a track of what they spend and on what resources. But unlike private medicine, they don't have to account for every single minute spent on every patient by each doctor/nurse or whatever because as long as they get costs within budget, it really doesn't matter because they aren't billing insurance companies for their time or use of resources. Here is something you don't grasp. It isn't near as cheap as you think. Where do you think the money the government spends on it come from? It is part of your taxes, a big hunk of money that you have been conned into thinking you don't spend. By your explanation the Dr. gets paid the same for a patient regardless of the service he provides, that is just like out military care, you can keep it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:37:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is it not possible to talk to a Dr. about all forms of contraception? I didn't state it, but I think it's silly for them to not cover a Dr. visit where those 4 types of BC were discussed. I did raise a question about HIPAA laws and Dr.-Patient confidentiality. Because of those things, how is an employer going to even know what was discussed? How could they deny payment without knowing what was discussed? Do you know what billing codes are? The insurance industry will have to create a billing code that means discussed contraceptives. After that it's pretty simple. And if you read the stuff the doctor and insurance gave you, you waived some confidentiality in regards to billing. Pretty simple? Do the billing codes specify which birth control methods were discussed? They will have to. They'll be as specific as they need to be. So you don't know if they have a billing code for each of the 20 FDA approved methods of birth control?!? Huh. Imagine that. For each of the methods? No. That's not what billing codes do. But if the lawsuits get that specific then discussion of each specific contraceptive will get its own billing code and actually it will be more than just the 20 FDA approved. So, the Hobby Lobby suit was about 4 of the 20 methods. The didn't want to pay for 4 of the 20 (they are covering the other 16). Their suit was about those 4, not all 20. So, their suit included the related costs of those 4 methods. Nothing else. That the SCOTUS stated this decision also covers the other 16 is of no consequence to Hobby Lobby. They weren't trying to get an exemption that covered all 20 forms of BC. Someone else might, but that's not what Hobby Lobby was driving at.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 2:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So they just pour money into it with no accounting. There IS accounting - on a "per patient" level. You really can't grasp this concept at all can you? Just like Desi and a few others. You're completely wrong. I understand it. I don't see it as workable in the US.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 4:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is it not possible to talk to a Dr. about all forms of contraception? I didn't state it, but I think it's silly for them to not cover a Dr. visit where those 4 types of BC were discussed. I did raise a question about HIPAA laws and Dr.-Patient confidentiality. Because of those things, how is an employer going to even know what was discussed? How could they deny payment without knowing what was discussed? Do you know what billing codes are? The insurance industry will have to create a billing code that means discussed contraceptives. After that it's pretty simple. And if you read the stuff the doctor and insurance gave you, you waived some confidentiality in regards to billing. Pretty simple? Do the billing codes specify which birth control methods were discussed? They will have to. They'll be as specific as they need to be. So you don't know if they have a billing code for each of the 20 FDA approved methods of birth control?!? Huh. Imagine that. For each of the methods? No. That's not what billing codes do. But if the lawsuits get that specific then discussion of each specific contraceptive will get its own billing code and actually it will be more than just the 20 FDA approved. Will they also have a code for discussing the weather and if the person owns firearms? You have no idea what the fuck the billing code break out do you?

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 4:06:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So they just pour money into it with no accounting. There IS accounting - on a "per patient" level. You really can't grasp this concept at all can you? Just like Desi and a few others. You're completely wrong. I understand it. I don't see it as workable in the US. And why not? exactly.

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 4:30:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is it not possible to talk to a Dr. about all forms of contraception? I didn't state it, but I think it's silly for them to not cover a Dr. visit where those 4 types of BC were discussed. I did raise a question about HIPAA laws and Dr.-Patient confidentiality. Because of those things, how is an employer going to even know what was discussed? How could they deny payment without knowing what was discussed? Do you know what billing codes are? The insurance industry will have to create a billing code that means discussed contraceptives. After that it's pretty simple. And if you read the stuff the doctor and insurance gave you, you waived some confidentiality in regards to billing. Pretty simple? Do the billing codes specify which birth control methods were discussed? They will have to. They'll be as specific as they need to be. So you don't know if they have a billing code for each of the 20 FDA approved methods of birth control?!? Huh. Imagine that. For each of the methods? No. That's not what billing codes do. But if the lawsuits get that specific then discussion of each specific contraceptive will get its own billing code and actually it will be more than just the 20 FDA approved. Will they also have a code for discussing the weather and if the person owns firearms? You have no idea what the fuck the billing code break out do you? Many doctors ask about firearm ownership and consult with the patient if they say yes. Don't we need a billing code for that?

BamaD -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 4:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: BamaD So trust big brother Dude if you so despise and distust the government of my country why the fuck do you live here? maybe because he would not get a carry permit anywhere else I do not despise MY countries government. I am not fond of those in it who want to twist it into something else. Those who could read would know that my references to big brother were in relation to England's socialized medicine.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875