Nothing I've seen in these 3 fires makes me want a Tesla any less. The people involved in those accidents all got out completely unharmed and, as far as I know, still praising their cars.
Except that doctor said he's healthy.
Not clear what tests were performed. Was he malnourished? Was he vitamin deficient? Did he have normal insulin levels (did he have normal insulin levels beforehand)?
Does that make them, essentially, "water barons" trying to control a resource that it not scarce, by creating artificial scarcity? Doesn't usually end well for the barons (the plan works, but someone usually passes a law to shut them down)
I voted for him the first time around. Hell, I campaigned for him. I sorely regret doing so. I don't know if Clinton would have been better, but at least I wouldn't carry the shame of helping him get into office with me for the rest of my life.
I am a Massachusetts independent voter. I used to side with the GoP until they went off the deep end. I then sided with the Dems, but now that I see how they are doing things I doubt I will ever back one of them again.
So what's left? We're in a two party system. Do I just vote 3rd party knowing it is the same as not voting and grow more and more bitter with each election?
The tax code is about 10,000 pages long. I think it's perfectly reasonable to fail to fully understand it. I'd estimate that there isn't a human on the planet who fully understands it. Even supernumerate savants would probably struggle with it as it isn't pure numbers.
I'm totally with you on simplifying the tax code. I'd like to see it automatically get recycled and start from scratch every 15 years (when the fiscal landscape has probably changed considerably by that amount of time). Lets do that! Except that nobody has really volunteered to do that. Businesses and the rich (the only ones with real voices in government) have carefully crafted all those loopholes and don't want to see them removed.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that says that the tax code cannot exceed 10 pages of single-spaced 11-point font 8.5x11" paper. If they can't get it all in that space, it doesn't need to be there. Tax law *should* be simple.
"If I had known that people that make $250k/year would be bad mouthed by the time I got here I wouldn't have fucking done it"
Really? You'd settle for one of those $60k jobs and a life of making ends meet to avoid some verbal barbs? Because I hate to break it to you, we middle-class guys still get insults hurled our way.
They actually can be used in combination. For professional claims (private doc offices, labs, etc) I think you can have 13 codes, and for hospital claims you can have 25 or so.
The law is not creating any codes. ICD-10 codes were created back in the early 90s and have been in use by countries other than the USA since the late 90s. But Medicare hasn't been eager to adopt anything that would require they change their software, so the USA sat on it's butt with the ICD-9 codes for the duration.
ICD-10 does indeed give lots more detail. And while some of it is ridiculous sounding, the vast majority provides levels of detail that the insurers have been wanting, but the health care providers have had no mechanism to send. (bear in mind that the HIPAA law requires almost all providers use EDI electronic commerce for sending health care claims, so they've been on a standardized format for years)
ICD-9 isn't up to the task. ICD-10 goes above and beyond. There will definitely be some issues (I'm seeing them already on some of my projects at an insurance company) as we figure out how to process claims when we receive a lamp-post-injury code etc. But we'll get there.
As for costs. Will it increase costs? Yeah, in the short term. But it's got to happen. We're paying more now for not having it, we'll have to pay a bit more to adopt it, and then it is to be hoped that having it (ICD-10, that is) will eventually reduce some costs. How? Because the claims that get denied because the person shouldn't have been covered that is successfully communicated by the ICD-10 codes means that everyone else doesn't have to pick up the tab for that person who is setting his skiis on fire while being attacked by a bird with a lamp post. Trust me, you want payments to be as accurate as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
GOOD!
Nothing I've seen in these 3 fires makes me want a Tesla any less. The people involved in those accidents all got out completely unharmed and, as far as I know, still praising their cars.
Except that doctor said he's healthy. Not clear what tests were performed. Was he malnourished? Was he vitamin deficient? Did he have normal insulin levels (did he have normal insulin levels beforehand)?
Does that make them, essentially, "water barons" trying to control a resource that it not scarce, by creating artificial scarcity? Doesn't usually end well for the barons (the plan works, but someone usually passes a law to shut them down)
I voted for him the first time around. Hell, I campaigned for him. I sorely regret doing so. I don't know if Clinton would have been better, but at least I wouldn't carry the shame of helping him get into office with me for the rest of my life. I am a Massachusetts independent voter. I used to side with the GoP until they went off the deep end. I then sided with the Dems, but now that I see how they are doing things I doubt I will ever back one of them again. So what's left? We're in a two party system. Do I just vote 3rd party knowing it is the same as not voting and grow more and more bitter with each election?
"Don't be (caught being) evil"
The tax code is about 10,000 pages long. I think it's perfectly reasonable to fail to fully understand it. I'd estimate that there isn't a human on the planet who fully understands it. Even supernumerate savants would probably struggle with it as it isn't pure numbers. I'm totally with you on simplifying the tax code. I'd like to see it automatically get recycled and start from scratch every 15 years (when the fiscal landscape has probably changed considerably by that amount of time). Lets do that! Except that nobody has really volunteered to do that. Businesses and the rich (the only ones with real voices in government) have carefully crafted all those loopholes and don't want to see them removed. Personally, I'd like to see a law that says that the tax code cannot exceed 10 pages of single-spaced 11-point font 8.5x11" paper. If they can't get it all in that space, it doesn't need to be there. Tax law *should* be simple.
"If I had known that people that make $250k/year would be bad mouthed by the time I got here I wouldn't have fucking done it" Really? You'd settle for one of those $60k jobs and a life of making ends meet to avoid some verbal barbs? Because I hate to break it to you, we middle-class guys still get insults hurled our way.
They actually can be used in combination. For professional claims (private doc offices, labs, etc) I think you can have 13 codes, and for hospital claims you can have 25 or so.
The 25 or so other countries who use these codes already have not yet imploded.
The law is not creating any codes. ICD-10 codes were created back in the early 90s and have been in use by countries other than the USA since the late 90s. But Medicare hasn't been eager to adopt anything that would require they change their software, so the USA sat on it's butt with the ICD-9 codes for the duration. ICD-10 does indeed give lots more detail. And while some of it is ridiculous sounding, the vast majority provides levels of detail that the insurers have been wanting, but the health care providers have had no mechanism to send. (bear in mind that the HIPAA law requires almost all providers use EDI electronic commerce for sending health care claims, so they've been on a standardized format for years) ICD-9 isn't up to the task. ICD-10 goes above and beyond. There will definitely be some issues (I'm seeing them already on some of my projects at an insurance company) as we figure out how to process claims when we receive a lamp-post-injury code etc. But we'll get there. As for costs. Will it increase costs? Yeah, in the short term. But it's got to happen. We're paying more now for not having it, we'll have to pay a bit more to adopt it, and then it is to be hoped that having it (ICD-10, that is) will eventually reduce some costs. How? Because the claims that get denied because the person shouldn't have been covered that is successfully communicated by the ICD-10 codes means that everyone else doesn't have to pick up the tab for that person who is setting his skiis on fire while being attacked by a bird with a lamp post. Trust me, you want payments to be as accurate as possible.