Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/6/2014 8:33:42 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 201
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/6/2014 8:55:54 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 202
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/6/2014 9:16:24 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 203
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/6/2014 9:46:19 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 204
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 5:39:26 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline 		ICD 10 is specific enough and if it doesn't cover everything, then CMS will add more codes. Not the insurance companies.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 205
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 7:36:43 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 206
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 7:39:41 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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).

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 7/7/2014 7:43:16 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 207
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 9:27:14 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 208
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 9:46:34 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 209
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 3:39:33 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 7/7/2014 4:30:02 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 210
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 3:52:12 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

Are you serious?

Good grief.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 211
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 4:30:17 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 7/7/2014 4:37:22 PM >

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 212
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 4:45:26 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.




(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 213
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 4:51:42 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 214
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 6:13:03 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 215
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 7:21:03 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Thank heavens we have the Cloud to set us straight.

The problem simply doesn't exist. Gosh.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 216
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 7:45:09 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
Tort reform and the need for it, especially in the arena of Medical Malpractice is a hoax.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 217
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 7:49:56 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Thank you for your superior wisdom. I see it all clearly now.

You saved us just in time.

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 218
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 8:22:39 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 219
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/7/2014 9:27:45 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 220
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109