As Hospital Prices Soar, a Single Stitch Tops $500

[QUOTE=shlver]A lot of time and money is wasted into coding and claim filing when reimbursements are denied due to "coding errors" or "mixups" on the insurance companies' end. A universal, uniform coding system for all insurance companies would reduce a large portion of the administrative overhead of medical practices. There are many ways to improve the system, but these solutions can only make headway when pac contributions from insurance lobbies are forbidden.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Yet even when claims are filed using the correct universal codes a common insurance industry tactic is to send the claim back requesting clarification or further documentation. It's a stall tactic designed to frustrate both the patient and doctor and drive a wedge into that relationship, thus causing the patient to reconsider having more procedures done. And then when the requested information is sent, insurance companies often claim that they never received them. It's criminal.

[QUOTE=Godzuki]Its funny how you keep saying what i'm typing is incoherent when you seem to be able to understand and attempt to argue it. You're an extremely bias person FYI and it appears very set in your ways despite logic, and are from my observation very idealistic and stubborn to a fault.

Anyways i'm not going to keep arguing and wasting my time with someone clearly very set in his/her beliefs. I'll just say you should try to be less ignorantly stubborn in your views and open them up to more practical realities. I think that is the biggest difference between us. I could care less if Capitalism was the end all be all of governance and Socialism was so flawed, i'd be happy to praise it. Problem is Capitalism and greed driven governance has major issues, nor is Socialism anywhere near as evil and awful as many of you Capitalist to a fault Republicans keep preaching.

I hope this was coherent enough for you to understand, then again everything i typed seemed to be coherent enough for you to argue. You're very bitter and passive aggressive in your argumentative style.[/QUOTE]
You have shown yourself to be ignorant of what capitalism or socialism are, and of how they work (or don't work in the case of socialism). Capitalism is not created by governance, it is the natural outcome when a bunch of human beings are shoved together; it is the only way to accumulate capital and thus spur economic growth and improve living standards. I am not set in my 'beliefs' at all, and what we've been discussing is tantamount to fact rather than belief; the difference between us is that you believe what you would like to believe based on your ideological leanings, whereas i draw my conclusions after studying theory and history and discovering some things can be done while others can't. You don't want to do this because 1. It is too much effort 2. You'd much rather accept the palpably untrue if it fits comfortably with how you otherwise view the world.

Socialism with its inability to solve the pricing problem, and therefore devoid of any means of resource distribution outside of a centralised state, will always fail, and can never work.

Your posts are incoherent: it is like you just spewed out every trite platitude you'd ever heard, whether it was related to what was being discussed or not. So stop spewing your deranged nonsense as if it is anything other than a trivial belief system like Mormonism. You are like Michael Moore (one of your heroes, no doubt) constantly arraigning 'capitalism' while praising the tenets of capitalism and thinking they are something different:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXWoU0YqsU0[/url]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You're a joke.

[QUOTE=Dresta]You have shown yourself to be ignorant of what capitalism or socialism are, and of how they work (or don't work in the case of socialism). Capitalism is not created by governance, it is the natural outcome when a bunch of human beings are shoved together; it is the only way to accumulate capital and thus spur economic growth and improve living standards. I am not set in my 'beliefs' at all, and what we've been discussing is tantamount to fact rather than belief; the difference between us is that you believe what you would like to believe based on your ideological leanings, whereas i draw my conclusions after studying theory and history and discovering some things can be done while others can't. You don't want to do this because 1. It is too much effort 2. You'd much rather accept the palpably untrue if it fits comfortably with how you otherwise view the world.

Socialism with its inability to solve the pricing problem, and therefore devoid of any means of resource distribution outside of a centralised state, will always fail, and can never work.

Your posts are incoherent: it is like you just spewed out every trite platitude you'd ever heard, whether it was related to what was being discussed or not. So stop spewing your deranged nonsense as if it is anything other than a trivial belief system like Mormonism. You are like Michael Moore (one of your heroes, no doubt) constantly arraigning 'capitalism' while praising the tenets of capitalism and thinking they are something different:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXWoU0YqsU0[/url]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You're a joke.[/QUOTE]


everything i said was very logical, its just you're so bias and angry you take it all so personally. its so obvious in your tone, its just like when you're posting on your other handle in that angry troll mode. The way you write might change but that bitterness is very evident still.

I'm also assuming you hold every post on the internet you read to these same standards of being coherent? I didn't think so. Ask yourself what causes you to be aggressive in such a pompous, elitist way in this case and not others. You just can't seem to accept any logic that doesn't support your beliefs and just want to attack them in whatever you can. You're a dime a dozen internet know it all but very ignorant and impractical right wing talking head. Its always all or nothing with most of you and you're no different.

[QUOTE=Godzuki]everything i said was very logical, its just you're so bias and angry you take it all so personally. its so obvious in your tone, its just like when you're posting on your other handle in that angry troll mode. The way you write might change but that bitterness is very evident still.

I'm also assuming you hold every post on the internet you read to these same standards of being coherent? I didn't think so. Ask yourself what causes you to be aggressive in such a pompous, elitist way in this case and not others. You just can't seem to accept any logic that doesn't support your beliefs and just want to attack them in whatever you can. You're a dime a dozen internet know it all but very ignorant and impractical right wing talking head. Its always all or nothing with most of you and you're no different.[/QUOTE]
No, you are so biased that you think your illiterate ramblings are logical. (what other handle do i have as well? No one's ever accused me of that before - i post more than enough on this one thanks).

And yes, anyone who puts up a wall of text that they expect me to read and respond to has to meet standards of coherence. It is not elitist to demand that something makes sense. Here are some sentences cut from your earlier post:

[QUOTE=Godzuki] Of course i odn't expect anyone to ban alcohol but obviously it was an example i used for negative habits paralleling eating fast food.


you can't be so one sided not to see the hypcrisy of pretending that while acting like everyone very moderately drinks alcohol with no negative consequences to their health.


Restaurants have evolved in our country to corporations owning and running these mass serving cheap food on the go business's that amass them huge profits.


Then make that policy on whats realistic not some pipe dream that everyone is as perfect or fortunate as some of you pretend to be who constantly look down on them like you have no faults of your own.


There is a humanistic side to the issues no matter how selfish a lot of you want to pretend everything should be, also consequences when people become desperate with large wealth gap.


I find it funny how Republicans constantly cite the Reagan era, or our past back to even times when there were town criers to report news and we were at war with people in other states to justify things as what i find laughable. circumstances have almost zero parallels to today and that is everything if you want to pretend to cite history repeating itself.[/QUOTE]

And those were only a selection of your incoherent babble. Most of the rest of it didn't make much sense either.

Once again: you haven't provided any logic; i showed your post to be logically flawed and to contradict itself, yet you refrained from bothering with a reply which didn't involve slinging some demeaning label onto me because you don't have a response, you don't have a logical argument, and you haven't the first idea of what the **** you are talking about. You get all your opinions second-hand from tv, newspapers and maybe the radio, and yet you come on here arguing like they're the result of some kind of in-depth study, when your illiteracy betrays that you've likely never read a book in your life. And then you have the cheek to call me biased and ignorant and impractical. This coming from the person ignorant of the theoretical failings of socialism. Get real, you are the self-righteous and dogmatic one; you are certain in arguments that you don't even know your own side of - pathetic.

[QUOTE=Dresta]No, you are so biased that you think your illiterate ramblings are logical. (what other handle do i have as well? No one's ever accused me of that before - i post more than enough on this one thanks).

And yes, anyone who puts up a wall of text that they expect me to read and respond to has to meet standards of coherence. It is not elitist to demand that something makes sense. Here are some sentences cut from your earlier post:



And those were only a selection of your incoherent babble. Most of the rest of it didn't make much sense either.

Once again: you haven't provided any logic; i showed your post to be logically flawed and to contradict itself, yet you refrained from bothering with a reply which didn't involve slinging some demeaning label onto me because you don't have a response, you don't have a logical argument, and you haven't the first idea of what the **** you are talking about. You get all your opinions second-hand from tv, newspapers and maybe the radio, and yet you come on here arguing like they're the result of some kind of in-depth study, when your illiteracy betrays that you've likely never read a book in your life. And then you have the cheek to call me biased and ignorant and impractical. This coming from the person ignorant of the theoretical failings of socialism. Get real, you are the self-righteous and dogmatic one; you are certain in arguments that you don't even know your own side of - pathetic.[/QUOTE]


i could easily have argued and contradicted everything you stated in your last wall of txt to me but it would've continued going endlessly with your refusal to be open minded. i'm pretty sure anyone reading these could understand most of the points i made, but like i said you have a major chip on your shoulder where you just want to take shots at people who don't agree with your beliefs.

FYI i never built a straw man when that was the example i initially made to show the similarity between regulating peoples eating habits and the consumption of alcohol. the way that went just reinforced my initial comparison.

furthermore when variables aren't the same you cannot possibly pretend history parallels the same circumstance, let alone the outcomes being the same. If you want to ask me what we should compare it to, how about the current circumstance all of the the current variables?

and like i told you i backed out because you're stubborn to a fault in your beliefs and yes you are like the Rush Limbaugh's and right wing talking heads that are all or nothing capitalism, with zero middle ground between the two. also bitter as hell for whatever reasons. your mindset is everything wrong with this country's voters.

[QUOTE=Godzuki]i could easily have argued and contradicted everything you stated in your last wall of txt to me but it would've continued going endlessly with your refusal to be open minded. i'm pretty sure anyone reading these could understand most of the points i made, but like i said you have a major chip on your shoulder where you just want to take shots at people who don't agree with your beliefs.

FYI i never built a straw man when that was the example i initially made to show the similarity between regulating peoples eating habits and the consumption of alcohol. the way that went just reinforced my initial comparison.

furthermore when variables aren't the same you cannot possibly pretend history parallels the same circumstance, let alone the outcomes being the same. If you want to ask me what we should compare it to, how about the current circumstance all of the the current variables?

and like i told you i backed out because you're stubborn to a fault in your beliefs and yes you are like the Rush Limbaugh's and right wing talking heads that are all or nothing capitalism, with zero middle ground between the two. also bitter as hell for whatever reasons. your mindset is everything wrong with this country's voters.[/QUOTE]
I have not the patience to be patronised by someone who thinks that history is not something from which lessons can be learned, and will not be preached to about capitalism by someone who has demonstrated his clear ignorance of capitalism and what in entails earlier in the thread. You've backed off to once again grouping me with people i have very little in common with (collectivist ad hominem) and abstracts with no theoretical grounding to them (compare to the current circumstances and all the current variables - this doesn't mean anything, what variables are you talking about!?). The most obvious variable is that government is the biggest monopoly around and is controlled by thoroughly unscrupulous individuals, so why an earth you want to grant them more power when they already have far more than is constitutionally acceptable is beyond me.

Keep up the faith: these people have your interests at heart! And i don't vote in the US either, i vote in the UK, so yet another fallacy on your part. Amazing that you can deny things presented right in front of your ignorant and sanctimonious nose.

[QUOTE]OldSkoolball#52[/QUOTE]

:biggums:

can you please explain how a person being fat is justification for a single stitch costing $500?

I'll hang up and listen.

[QUOTE=kentatm]:biggums:

can you please explain how a person being fat is justification for a single stitch costing $500?

I'll hang up and listen.[/QUOTE]

Maybe while he is explaining how fat people are responsible for healthcare costs in the US, he can also explain how other fat countries such as the UK can afford "socialist" universal healthcare while spending less per capita for their entire healthcare system than the US govt spends on just medicare and medicaid.

Had a left inguinal hernia repaired today and my only expense was $19 for 30 oxycodone tablets. Paying for your current and future healthcare through taxes is the way to go, shit is simple and it works. I have a cousin living in alexandria va who makes good coin yet is always complaining about healthcare meanwhile I make 75% of what he's making yet tax has never been an issue. To be fair though the canadian system is all I have ever known. What would a plan with good coverage run you on a yearly basis?