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

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 8:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Many doctors ask about firearm ownership and consult with the patient if they say yes. Don't we need a billing code for that? Only if an insurance company doesn't pay for it or if they charge differently for it.

thishereboi -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 8:55:54 PM)
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. The insurance industry won't have to do anything. CMS already has those codes in ICD 9 for contraceptive counseling and if I am not mistaken there are also CPT codes that cover it.

thishereboi -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 9:16:24 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? E907 Accident due to lightning, E9222 accident caused by hunting rifle and several more depending on where he was, what he was doing and if is was an accident or not. they even have one for getting hurt while skiing while barefoot. Oh and they also have ICD9 codes that specify contraceptive counseling and which method is discussed. When we finally switch over to ICD 10 they will get even more detailed.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/6/2014 9:46:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi 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. The insurance industry won't have to do anything. CMS already has those codes in ICD 9 for contraceptive counseling and if I am not mistaken there are also CPT codes that cover it. Yes they will. It isn't specific enough.

thishereboi -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM)
ICD 10 is specific enough and if it doesn't cover everything, then CMS will add more codes. Not the insurance companies.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 7:36:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen 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. Dr.'s won't make enough money.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 7:39:41 AM)
Doctors in other countries do. And, reforming the frivolous law-suit friendly culture of the US, particularly in regards to malpractice, would greatly help both doctors' income (by reducing very expensive malpractice insurance coverage) and health care costs (due to many not strictly necessary tests performed primarily to cover doctor liability).

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 9:27:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Doctors in other countries do. And, reforming the frivolous law-suit friendly culture of the US, particularly in regards to malpractice, would greatly help both doctors' income (by reducing very expensive malpractice insurance coverage) and health care costs (due to many not strictly necessary tests performed primarily to cover doctor liability). Do Dr.'s in other countries make the scratch Dr.'s here make? They don't have the same costs hitting them in the face, either. We have been told by the left, over and over again, that tort reform won't help, which is why they won't support it. What you are talking about is aggregate costs, and those aren't really as important to look at as individual costs are. Drop individual costs, and aggregate costs will drop. Lifestyle plays quite a role in the health in the USA. We have terrible lifestyles, and make terrible choices that compound. Note this is a generalization; YRMV. I have argued that adopting more active lifestyles would help reduce the amount of medical care we, as a Nation, need (there's dropping aggregate costs for you), but was argued against by liberals who, apparently, think the only way one can get healthy is by having regular tests and taking drugs. Certainly, that will help, but that won't reduce aggregate costs as much as being healthier due to more activity. That would take care of the obesity epidemic among our kids faster than those same kids can throw out the crappy tasting food that First Lady Obama wants schools to dole out.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 9:46:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do Dr.'s in other countries make the scratch Dr.'s here make? They don't have the same costs hitting them in the face, either. It's really tiring to talk to you. That's what I just said.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 3:39:33 PM)
What evidence do you have of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits? Do you know what it even costs to bring a medical malpractice claim? Check out the documentary HOT COFFEE before you start blowing the tort reform horn.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 3:52:12 PM)
[8\|] Are you serious? Good grief.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 4:30:17 PM)
Would that be zero evidence? The general idea that medical malpractice claims lead to higher health care cost for patients is misleading and not based in fact. In jurisdictions that implemented tort reform neither health care costs or insurance premiums declined. Next, the citizen's day in court is being eroded by caps and mandatory arbitration. I think doctors that commit malpractice should be sued and I think victims of malpractice deserve compensation. Given that it costs about $20-50K to even file a credible medical malpractice case, I find it hard to believe there are very many frivolous claims filed. I also have never read or seen any evidence to the contrary. As I said before, check out HOT COFFEE.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 4:45:26 PM)
Well, I'm not a physician myself, Dr. Cloud, so I don't have all your years of medical experience. I also don't tend to get my information from the movies, so I can't comment there either -- though I had no idea McDonald's was a medical establishment and that the hot coffee incident was a medical malpractice suit. These guys are doctors, and they seem to see a problem: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/24/2936.full Nor does tort reform mean malpractice shouldn't bring a lawsuit. And you changed the subject from high malpractice insurance costs to frivolous lawsuits generally. I'm not a lawyer either, and I don't have your extensive legal knowledge, but these lawyers seem to think there's a problem in the US: http://blogs.lawyers.com/2010/07/america-the-litigious/ [Mother Jones has an interesting piece too -- http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/why-we-sue ] Then there's your ridiculous sense of logic -- If I don't do research for you, a VERY well-known and well-publicized problem doesn't exist. I appreciate your faith in my awesome powers, but I'll let you in on a secret -- If I don't explicitly post something, it's still possible for it to exist. Creation doesn't rest upon my individual consciousness. Now, if you want to pretend there's no issue, fine. I've no interest in playing the circle game with you.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 4:51:42 PM)
One link is more than ten years old and relates to cardiologists. The other two links are basically unrelated to Medical Malpractice. The truth is when you made your original assertion, you were just speaking off the top of your head and not from any in-depth research or understanding of the situation.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 6:13:03 PM)
The best attempt to synthesize the academic literature on medical malpractice is Tom Baker's The Medical Malpractice Myth, published last November. Baker, a law professor at the University of Connecticut who studies insurance, argues that the hype about medical malpractice suits is "urban legend mixed with the occasional true story, supported by selective references to academic studies." After all, including legal fees, insurance costs, and payouts, the cost of the suits comes to less than one-half of 1 percent of health-care spending. If anything, there are fewer lawsuits than would be expected, and far more injuries than we usually imagine. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/07/the_medical_malpractice_myth.html

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 7:21:03 PM)
Thank heavens we have the Cloud to set us straight. The problem simply doesn't exist. Gosh.

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 7:45:09 PM)
Tort reform and the need for it, especially in the arena of Medical Malpractice is a hoax.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 7:49:56 PM)
Thank you for your superior wisdom. I see it all clearly now. You saved us just in time.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 8:22:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Do Dr.'s in other countries make the scratch Dr.'s here make? They don't have the same costs hitting them in the face, either. It's really tiring to talk to you. That's what I just said. Is it really? Did you mention medical supply costs? Did you mention medical school costs? Did you say anything about what a Dr. makes there, compared to here? No. You didn't really do that.

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (7/7/2014 9:27:45 PM)
Did you read the part where you simply made the point I had just made? No. You didn't really do that. And if you had, you'd get why the comparison country to country would have to be adjusted for those costs first. So yes, it really is.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02