Can you lhear it? Can you hear the pfffffffssssssssttttttttt of the republican revolution deflating?

[fromderinside]

That's maroon. The idot Trump is not smart enough to be a moron. He's as smart as a rarely used hue.

 

[untermensche]

If the profit motive is involved then waste is involved.

In terms of health care, profit is waste. It is health care not provided.

Waste can be rampant in non-profit situations, also.

There is fraud in Medicare.

Doctors that lie. Drug manufacturers that charge whatever they want with no constraints.

But very little waste.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Waste can be rampant in non-profit situations, also.

There is fraud in Medicare.

Doctors that lie. Drug manufacturers that charge whatever they want with no constraints.

But very little waste.

1) Fraud is a form of waste.

2) There's an awful lot of effort expended on rather useless measures of quality of service as opposed to what the patient actually needs. I'd say at least half of my wife's PCP visits are complying with the myriad checklists. One of those quality of service metrics is at least 4 visits/year--something that she simply doesn't need.

 

[untermensche]

There is fraud in Medicare.

Doctors that lie. Drug manufacturers that charge whatever they want with no constraints.

But very little waste.

1) Fraud is a form of waste.

It is not waste within the system, like profit, which in terms of health care is pure internal waste.

2) There's an awful lot of effort expended on rather useless measures of quality of service as opposed to what the patient actually needs. I'd say at least half of my wife's PCP visits are complying with the myriad checklists. One of those quality of service metrics is at least 4 visits/year--something that she simply doesn't need.

What is your medical training?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is something, the Republicans are at each other's throats. Their hard tack to the right was visible when Jeffords left the party to shortly deny the Republicans control of the Senate. And one was thinking maybe the party was splintering. However, McCain shifted along with it, so the cracks were merely microfractures for the meantime. Now things are really starting to come to the surface. And AHCA is just the start. AHCA was an interesting experiment in trying to reform something that was already a compromise and the Tea Party stuck to their guns. They didn't want replace, they wanted only repeal. And they stuck with it.

Tax reform isn't going to be any different. They don't want a Federal Government doing anything but defense. It could be impossible to both reform taxation and have a revenue fund that can pay for the Government's programs. The Tea Party could veto the bill again. The Republicans have shown absolutely no interest in governing a Democracy. They want one party rule. There have been several times where just a bit of teamwork would have put a conservative plan over, but the Republicans don't want moderate, overall, they only want Republican Rule. But now the party has true believers and their "majority" in Congress is only an illusion.

AHCA died, so can tax reform, and even a budget. Ryan is in the situation of trying to gather everyone in his party together, which clearly looks like an impossible task, because passing legislation now actually has consequences, back when repealing ACA over and over again was merely show. What the Republicans do now can be graded for effectiveness. The Tea Party doesn't care, establishment Republicans do. They can't afford a 2010 landslide in the other direction in 2020.

There is fraud in Medicare.

Doctors that lie. Drug manufacturers that charge whatever they want with no constraints.

But very little waste.

1) Fraud is a form of waste.

2) There's an awful lot of effort expended on rather useless measures of quality of service as opposed to what the patient actually needs. I'd say at least half of my wife's PCP visits are complying with the myriad checklists. One of those quality of service metrics is at least 4 visits/year--something that she simply doesn't need.

I'm curious, while cookie cutter usually leads to some overlapping, what in the heck is your professional basis for saying such a system isn't proper due diligence in general?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Fraud is a form of waste.

It is not waste within the system, like profit, which in terms of health care is pure internal waste.

Weaseling.

Waste is waste.

2) There's an awful lot of effort expended on rather useless measures of quality of service as opposed to what the patient actually needs. I'd say at least half of my wife's PCP visits are complying with the myriad checklists. One of those quality of service metrics is at least 4 visits/year--something that she simply doesn't need.

What is your medical training?

Her PCP admits she doesn't need to come in that often, it's just she gets dinged on quality of service if she doesn't.

 

[fromderinside]

Wrangling in the cheap seats again are we. In general a certain rate of visit frequency is shown to increase HC benefit. You want to consider particular cases, go on foraging in the weeds near the fence where people won't notice. No if it were something important like dropping poor people after a while one begins to notice increases in such as emergency room visits by those without coverage and statistics showing increased mortality with lower income which are noticeable.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It is something, the Republicans are at each other's throats. Their hard tack to the right was visible when Jeffords left the party to shortly deny the Republicans control of the Senate. And one was thinking maybe the party was splintering. However, McCain shifted along with it, so the cracks were merely microfractures for the meantime. Now things are really starting to come to the surface. And AHCA is just the start. AHCA was an interesting experiment in trying to reform something that was already a compromise and the Tea Party stuck to their guns. They didn't want replace, they wanted only repeal. And they stuck with it.

Tax reform isn't going to be any different. They don't want a Federal Government doing anything but defense. It could be impossible to both reform taxation and have a revenue fund that can pay for the Government's programs. The Tea Party could veto the bill again. The Republicans have shown absolutely no interest in governing a Democracy. They want one party rule. There have been several times where just a bit of teamwork would have put a conservative plan over, but the Republicans don't want moderate, overall, they only want Republican Rule. But now the party has true believers and their "majority" in Congress is only an illusion.

AHCA died, so can tax reform, and even a budget. Ryan is in the situation of trying to gather everyone in his party together, which clearly looks like an impossible task, because passing legislation now actually has consequences, back when repealing ACA over and over again was merely show. What the Republicans do now can be graded for effectiveness. The Tea Party doesn't care, establishment Republicans do. They can't afford a 2010 landslide in the other direction in 2020.

1) Fraud is a form of waste.

2) There's an awful lot of effort expended on rather useless measures of quality of service as opposed to what the patient actually needs. I'd say at least half of my wife's PCP visits are complying with the myriad checklists. One of those quality of service metrics is at least 4 visits/year--something that she simply doesn't need.

I'm curious, while cookie cutter usually leads to some overlapping, what in the heck is your professional basis for saying such a system isn't proper due diligence in general?

Yes, this matches my observations nicely, so you must be brilliant!

Their ideology is so far right that it's too draconian (I believe) to be able to govern any modern democracy effectively. They've gotten what they wanted in a few states (Kansas comes to mind) and even that experiment ending in complete and utter failure has not persuaded them that they could be wrong. One would need a police state to enact and sustain the type of policies they want, and while they've made moves towards that police state, they haven't gotten one yet.

Their base is so rabid and dumbed down that they cannot deliver and relieve the outrage machine they themselves have created. The irony is those same techniques led to the rise of Trump.

 

[untermensche]

It is not waste within the system, like profit, which in terms of health care is pure internal waste.

Weaseling.

Waste is waste.

Making rational distinctions can always be called weaseling by the irrational.

It is not waste inherent to the system.

It is a problem that would be present with any insurance system.

There will always be doctors that commit fraud.

That is a problem completely separate from any consideration of a useful insurance program.

What is your medical training?

Her PCP admits she doesn't need to come in that often, it's just she gets dinged on quality of service if she doesn't.

If her PCP told you that then she is an idiot.

She is admitting she is not following standard medical practice. Admitting malpractice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is not waste within the system, like profit, which in terms of health care is pure internal waste.

Weaseling.

Waste is waste.

2) There's an awful lot of effort expended on rather useless measures of quality of service as opposed to what the patient actually needs. I'd say at least half of my wife's PCP visits are complying with the myriad checklists. One of those quality of service metrics is at least 4 visits/year--something that she simply doesn't need.

What is your medical training?

Her PCP admits she doesn't need to come in that often, it's just she gets dinged on quality of service if she doesn't.

And most people that don't wear seatbelts don't get hurt or die when driving the car, therefore seat belts are wasted resources. The point is, the number of times likely has a statistical benefit for enough people to make it worth the cost.

 

[fromderinside]

Two cars each with two person in car going 50 mph involved in head on collision.
Check most likely situation resulting in at least one death.

[TABLE="width: 500, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD] situation[/TD]
[TD] result[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]no one wore seat belts[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]one person did not wear seat belt[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]everybody wore seat belts[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Two cars each with two person in car going 50 mph involved in head on collision.
Check most likely situation resulting in at least one death.

[TABLE="width: 500, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD] situation[/TD]
[TD] result[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]no one wore seat belts[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]one person did not wear seat belt[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]everybody wore seat belts[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The point was that just because most people aren't in incidents where a seatbelt would have helped protect them doesn't mean the seatbelt is a waste. Much like how Loren wants to say that the number of visits is an automatic waste because it is for his wife.

For seatbelts, there will be accidents for some drivers. For health care, there will be complications for some.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Her PCP admits she doesn't need to come in that often, it's just she gets dinged on quality of service if she doesn't.

And most people that don't wear seatbelts don't get hurt or die when driving the car, therefore seat belts are wasted resources. The point is, the number of times likely has a statistical benefit for enough people to make it worth the cost.

The point is it's applying one-size-fits-all and causing waste.

What do you think the benefit is, if there weren't such a quality standard that they would skimp on visits to save money? The wasted visits on the healthy cost less than the harm from the visits that didn't happen?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And most people that don't wear seatbelts don't get hurt or die when driving the car, therefore seat belts are wasted resources. The point is, the number of times likely has a statistical benefit for enough people to make it worth the cost.

The point is it's applying one-size-fits-all and causing waste.

What do you think the benefit is, if there weren't such a quality standard that they would skimp on visits to save money? The wasted visits on the healthy cost less than the harm from the visits that didn't happen?

Because for some statistical number of people per thousand, the visits would mean improved health. You can't predict which people that would apply too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is it's applying one-size-fits-all and causing waste.

What do you think the benefit is, if there weren't such a quality standard that they would skimp on visits to save money? The wasted visits on the healthy cost less than the harm from the visits that didn't happen?

Because for some statistical number of people per thousand, the visits would mean improved health. You can't predict which people that would apply too.

But the doctors can see it.

 

[Arctish]

Because for some statistical number of people per thousand, the visits would mean improved health. You can't predict which people that would apply too.

But the doctors can see it.

Doctors can't predict which patients will develop an illness, but they do know that early detection of illnesses like cancer usually means better outcomes.

Your wife's doctor might simply be reassuring her patient that there's nothing to worry about right now, while also making sure she keeps coming back for regular checkups just in case something develops.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the doctors can see it.

Doctors can't predict which patients will develop an illness, but they do know that early detection of illnesses like cancer usually means better outcomes.

Your wife's doctor might simply be reassuring her patient that there's nothing to worry about right now, while also making sure she keeps coming back for regular checkups just in case something develops.

Detect how, though? It's not like they're running tests on every visit.

 

[ZiprHead]

Doctors can't predict which patients will develop an illness, but they do know that early detection of illnesses like cancer usually means better outcomes.

Your wife's doctor might simply be reassuring her patient that there's nothing to worry about right now, while also making sure she keeps coming back for regular checkups just in case something develops.

Detect how, though? It's not like they're running tests on every visit.

Listening to the heartbeat, the lung function, blood pressure and weight monitoring can all be called testing. Checking feet and legs for edema or signs of diabetes can be considered testing. These are all things that should be checked regularly with increasing frequency as we age.

 

[fromderinside]

Anything that requires operations and is aimed at finding something can be called testing, or, science.