A man and a satyr once poured out libations together in token of a bond of alliance being formed between them. One very cold wintry day, as they talked together, the man put his fingers to his mouth and blew on them. On the satyr inquiring the reason of this, he told him that he did it to warm his hands, they were so cold. Later on in the day they sat down to eat, the food prepared being quite scalding. The man raised one of the dishes a little towards his mouth and blew in it. On the satyr again inquiring the reason of this, he said that he did it to cool the meat, it was so hot. "I can no longer consider you as a friend," said the Satyr, "a fellow who with the same breath blows hot and cold."
Because indeed, how can anything cause both floods and droughts?
explaining my opinions to people whose political views are so narrow that they refuse to consider another point of view.
How in the world do you conclude what my political views are based on the fact that I assert that archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics, geophysics, paleontology, and paleobotany are sciences?
I'm sorry, but since you're speaking in broad generalities allow me to do the same. Exactly how are death threats (credible or otherwise) different from any other form of expression? What about standing behind someone and insulting them day in and day out for weeks or years on end?
If expressing yourself is a vital basic natural right no matter the impact on who you express yourself to, shouldn't death threats and harassment also be held as inviolate acts?
"You are by all means free to censor those thoughts but you have no basis to claim you are harassed by thoughts you don't like."
It would appear that under your logic death threats should be protected and not considered harassment. As I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, I would like a little more clarification for your stance on threats of physical harm?
It sounds to me like you're suggesting that insurance companies which are already denying claims based on underlying cause of injury (birth defect is covered but development isn't) won't adapt their policies to be more specific in which ICD-10's are denied with changeover. In my opinion they will abuse the system as best they can, and we'll try to figure out ways around their loopholes and exceptions, but I don't doubt it'll be harder under the new coding system.
As I stated in another reply to you, I noted that you were not clear in your initials sweeping statements, and so I wanted to be very clear to anyone reading the thread that ICD-9/ICD-10 codes and billing/payment are very much reliant upon each other. Also that with Worker's Compensation claims (and sometimes no-fault) the E codes are often required by specific companies.
You were unclear in your statement, and not specific that you were speaking of the cause of injury. I think most people reading your statement would interpret it as I did, that you were indicating that ICD codes have nothing to do with insurance billing.
Also when looking at worker's compensation and no-fault claims you'll find that cause of injury is often given great scrutiny by the adjuster when deciding upon whether to pay outright or to force a hearing.
Private insurance policies in New York and Texas will deny based on the ICD-9 billed. This is usually due to specific limitations and exclusions in the policy. Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy all have this problem. For instance for Speech Therapy many Aetna policies will deny 315.32 (mixed expressive receptive language disorder) or 307.0 (stuttering) because it isn't an acceptable ICD-9 under their updated policies (which mainly, state that Speech Therapy is covered but only in the case of accident, injury or gross anatomical birth defect) but have no problem paying 784.59 (Other Speech Disturbance). Choosing the correct ICD-9 code out of the various diagnosis the therapist gives you, as well as knowing which one to bill primary or to not include so that a patient can receive covered care is very important in a clinical office setting. Though this is always done with the assent of the Therapist to make sure the diagnosis does apply to the patient.
Actually, this completely incorrect. Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, United Healthcare, and Unicare all base denials around injury codes.
Insurance billing has a lot to do with injury coding. Often the only way to get an insurance company to pay on a claim is to resubmit under an alternate ICD-9 code.
So you're saying that for instance: Archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics, geophysics, paleontology, and paleobotany, are not sciences?
I think perhaps you may be the one who is mistaken in your definition.
So you'd rather they just give the TV stations tax breaks? Because if you don't go with the obvious method of funding, that and many more obfuscated methods will be used.
Wikileaks: Here's a password to use, it's temporary.
So a gun analogy would be more like JD from Heathers:
Alright, these are Ich Luge bullets. My grandfather snared a shitload of them back in WW II. They're like tranquillizers, only they break the surface of the skin, enough to cause a little blood, but no real damage.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they give you a flight in their giant Golden Condor? 'Cause that's the test of a true Mayan, I learned it on TV.
http://youtu.be/kq5Y_ogiyi0
Just making a joke because Dilbert's garbage man is the smartest person he knows, super genius and all that.
Didn't realize I was taking a swing at anyone.
You remind me of the Satyr from Aesop's Fable:
A man and a satyr once poured out libations together in token of a bond of alliance being formed between them. One very cold wintry day, as they talked together, the man put his fingers to his mouth and blew on them. On the satyr inquiring the reason of this, he told him that he did it to warm his hands, they were so cold. Later on in the day they sat down to eat, the food prepared being quite scalding. The man raised one of the dishes a little towards his mouth and blew in it. On the satyr again inquiring the reason of this, he said that he did it to cool the meat, it was so hot.
"I can no longer consider you as a friend," said the Satyr, "a fellow who with the same breath blows hot and cold."
Because indeed, how can anything cause both floods and droughts?
Dilbert...is that you?
Wouldn't tidal be moon powered energy rather than sun?
Missed the meaning behind my question. I'll rephrase.
What is a form in which a credible death threat to a specific individual isn't harassing?
Well then, shouldn't a neurologist receive at least as much compensation as the broker?
explaining my opinions to people whose political views are so narrow that they refuse to consider another point of view.
How in the world do you conclude what my political views are based on the fact that I assert that archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics, geophysics, paleontology, and paleobotany are sciences?
Now that was one of the most interesting side notes I've read. Totally didn't realize that. Cool, +1 informative.
I'm sorry, but since you're speaking in broad generalities allow me to do the same. Exactly how are death threats (credible or otherwise) different from any other form of expression? What about standing behind someone and insulting them day in and day out for weeks or years on end?
If expressing yourself is a vital basic natural right no matter the impact on who you express yourself to, shouldn't death threats and harassment also be held as inviolate acts?
"You are by all means free to censor those thoughts but you have no basis to claim you are harassed by thoughts you don't like."
It would appear that under your logic death threats should be protected and not considered harassment. As I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, I would like a little more clarification for your stance on threats of physical harm?
It is always better to not speak to the police regarding any matter without your lawyer present.
It sounds to me like you're suggesting that insurance companies which are already denying claims based on underlying cause of injury (birth defect is covered but development isn't) won't adapt their policies to be more specific in which ICD-10's are denied with changeover.
In my opinion they will abuse the system as best they can, and we'll try to figure out ways around their loopholes and exceptions, but I don't doubt it'll be harder under the new coding system.
As I stated in another reply to you, I noted that you were not clear in your initials sweeping statements, and so I wanted to be very clear to anyone reading the thread that ICD-9/ICD-10 codes and billing/payment are very much reliant upon each other. Also that with Worker's Compensation claims (and sometimes no-fault) the E codes are often required by specific companies.
You were unclear in your statement, and not specific that you were speaking of the cause of injury. I think most people reading your statement would interpret it as I did, that you were indicating that ICD codes have nothing to do with insurance billing.
Also when looking at worker's compensation and no-fault claims you'll find that cause of injury is often given great scrutiny by the adjuster when deciding upon whether to pay outright or to force a hearing.
Private insurance policies in New York and Texas will deny based on the ICD-9 billed. This is usually due to specific limitations and exclusions in the policy. Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy all have this problem. For instance for Speech Therapy many Aetna policies will deny 315.32 (mixed expressive receptive language disorder) or 307.0 (stuttering) because it isn't an acceptable ICD-9 under their updated policies (which mainly, state that Speech Therapy is covered but only in the case of accident, injury or gross anatomical birth defect) but have no problem paying 784.59 (Other Speech Disturbance). Choosing the correct ICD-9 code out of the various diagnosis the therapist gives you, as well as knowing which one to bill primary or to not include so that a patient can receive covered care is very important in a clinical office setting. Though this is always done with the assent of the Therapist to make sure the diagnosis does apply to the patient.
Actually, this completely incorrect. Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, United Healthcare, and Unicare all base denials around injury codes.
Insurance billing has a lot to do with injury coding. Often the only way to get an insurance company to pay on a claim is to resubmit under an alternate ICD-9 code.
So you're saying that for instance: Archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics, geophysics, paleontology, and paleobotany, are not sciences?
I think perhaps you may be the one who is mistaken in your definition.
So you'd rather they just give the TV stations tax breaks? Because if you don't go with the obvious method of funding, that and many more obfuscated methods will be used.
And your response to me could be summed up with a single phrase,"I think Guardian is lying or mistaken."
You are a really long winded person you know that?
Not really.
Everything that you said is negated by telling the person you gave the password to, that it is a temporary password. As in, it will be changed.
Wikileaks: Here's a password to use, it's temporary.
So a gun analogy would be more like JD from Heathers:
Alright, these are Ich Luge bullets. My grandfather snared a shitload of them back in WW II. They're like tranquillizers, only they break the surface of the skin, enough to cause a little blood, but no real damage.
You obviously don't know many MUD admins.