At it's core, capitalism is that you own your own labor and your own product (if you produce something)
Until I take it from you b/c I have a bigger army. What's that, the government should prevent that from happening? So you think government should provide the services YOU want (protect your property and wealth), of course by taxing people. But government definitely shouldn't provide any services to anyone else that you disapprove of, b/c then taxation is theft.
I never said that the rich aren't getting a larger portion of the pie. I said that the pie is (has been) growing and everyone's portion is larger.
Except everyone's portion ISN'T getting larger. Proportionally, the middle class's portion is getting smaller, and the super-rich's portion is getting larger. How long do we have to wait until we complain about this? Until their larger portion has grown to 75% of the pie? 80%? 90%? As long as the rest of us has a subsistence level of existence (which not everyone does now)?
and I'll be damned if I let some lazy bastard with an entitlement complex demands I share because I have taken an unfair advantage.
Why is it that anyone that feels our current system is unfair must be a lazy slob that simply can't compete? Maybe I feel the system is unfair and that simply working harder to make sure I get mine would be contributing to a system that, again, I disapprove of. Maybe any system that has some people living in luxury while others literally die for lack of resources strikes me as immoral.
As for your assertion that capitalism is responsible for the overall better lifestyle (some) people enjoy, that's laughable. Technology has improved our lifestyle. Capitalism has supported some technological development, sometimes it has inhibited it. Government has supported some technological development, government has inhibited some.
That's kind of a fucked-up way of viewing society. Every time I stop at a red light, even though I am late and would rather blow through it, is b/c of the government's threat of violence? Every time I pay for my groceries rather than steal them is because of my fear of getting caught and violently punished? Some of us recognize and value the benefits of living in a civil society. Implicit to that is the idea that I have to make some personal compromises for the benefit of all. One of these is paying taxes in order to pay for items that serve the common good. Sure, I disagree with how some of my taxes are spent, maybe I disagree with how high my taxes are, but this is one of those "compromises" society is based on.
tldr; Only a sociopath participates in society SOLELY due to fear of reprisal for failure to do so.
I have no desire to weigh in one way or the other on whether working 80 hours/week is "stealing" jobs from someone else, but I do have one question. How does freelancing create jobs? Are you literally convincing people to hire you to do tasks they otherwise would not have accomplished?
The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.
The pharmaceutical industry is already competing with these drugs. Given the current ease of getting an eight ball vs. getting a prescription, I just don't see legalization causing large numbers of drug users to switch their drug of preference. Legalizing would simply allow the industry to add new items to their catalog. And I imagine that Pfizer will be much better at marketing "Pfizer Brand Cocaine - Now that's smooth!" than someone whose business model has been based on black market realities.
As for the specific case of marijuana, sure I could grow it. Just like I could brew my own beer, distill my own liquor. But I'm lazy and picky and would rather spend money on high quality substances than spend time on lower quality substances. I think I am not alone in that sentiment. This wouldn't necessarily benefit Pfizer et al, but I imagine Monsanto might have an interest.
It's possible, I suppose. However, the scenario we are discussing is the narrow one where it is an actual traumatic injury, with an external cause. These are generally fractures, lacerations, burns, swelling, poisoning, traumatic injuries. About the only one I could see being a concern would be something like an illegal drug overdose. The doctor would certainly base treatment on the exact nature of the poisoning. But people already lie about those sorts of things, nothing to do with insurance concerns. I really can't imagine any other injuries where exactly how the injury occurred would affect treatment of the injury itself.
This entire thread, and in fact article, revolves around the concept of expanding the cause of injury codes. I was responding to a comment that it is a plot by insurance companies to begin collecting these codes in order to have greater leeway to deny coverage. It's all about context. Speaking of which, I imagine you're right that worker's comp and no-fault claims closely scrutinize cause of injury (I hadn't thought of these cases). But can anyone seriously argue that is an abuse?
It goes back to intent, which we mostly have to rely on context to infer. If we're rehearsing a play, sure, nothing wrong with those words. Or if we're drunk and bitching about our wives and I make a poor taste joke, it shouldn't be illegal. But actually intending to murder someone and taking steps towards that goal SHOULD be illegal, IMO. It is certainly a grey area when you start judging other people's intentions, but I think necessary. You say criminalize the giving of funds, but giving funds isn't illegal. You then have to include the aspect of saying "Here's money for murdering my wife". Which makes not the action illegal, but the context as judged by the words is illegal. You're still making the words themselves meaningful in a legal sense, just one step removed. I'm not sure why that is cleaner.
Ok, I think that applies everywhere (the general rule, not necessarily your specific examples). Insurance companies have byzantine policies. What you are listing are ICD-9 diagnosis codes, however. I'm referring to the ICD-9 Coded Cause of Injury (E codes). These are the codes that tell HOW an injury occurred, not WHAT the injury was. And of course, only apply to classified injuries, not diseases or disorders such as you list. I think that is why so many people are confused here - E codes are actually pretty damn rare, and mostly only of interest to Injury Prevention folks. Many healthcare providers don't bother with them, specifically because they have no impact on billing.
In this context, ICD-9 is generally used to mean injury diagnosis code (what is wrong), not coded cause of injury (how it happened). Both are part of the ICD-9 spec, but completely distinct inside that spec. If the code value starts with an E, it's coded cause of injury. If it is a value from 800-999, it's an injury diagnosis code.
How? Maybe it differs from state to state, but in NC, the E code isn't a required field on claims forms. Most of the hospital billing systems I am familiar don't even store these - they are only stored in the clinical systems. They certainly aren't included on any claims forms. I'll admit, I'm only familiar with hospital systems, so maybe ambulatory care is different.
Simmer down, big boy. ICD-9 diagnosis codes are just that, diagnosis codes. Completely distinct from ICD-9 Coded Cause of Injury codes. They have distinct value ranges and different labels in the DG1 segment of HL7 and everything.
Just b/c you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean those of us that do are just making it up.
ICD-9 DOES have detailed causation, although not nearly as detailed as ICD-10, it looks like. ICD-9 has "Coded Cause of Injury Codes", AKA "E Codes" (they all start with E). These are distinct from the Injury Diagnosis Codes, which you provided examples of above. For instance -> E029.2 - Rough Housing and Horseplay. Or E885.4 - Accidental fall from Snowboard. These seem to fit your criteria of plausibly deniable causes of injury, are currently available, yet aren't being used by insurance companies.
What kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than typing?
Right, and what kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than saying words? Just b/c those words are "I will pay you $10,000 to kill my wife", really when you boil it down, all I did was say words. Context be damned.
Neither the government (Medicaid, Medicare) nor private insurance companies currently base payment on injury codes, so I'm not sure why you think they will begin to now.
Considering that insurance billing currently has nothing to do with injury coding, and this is merely the next iteration of it, I think your paranoia is misplaced.
People already lie to their physician all the time; I doubt this will have a significant impact on that. And if it does, so what? You think the doctor is going to treat an arm broken at church differently than an arm broken skateboarding?
I'll accept your approximation (for the sake of argument), but it's beside the point. There are many many invaluable, vital positions that contribute to society. I'm sure there are farmers sitting around complaining that engineers couldn't live without the farmer feeding him, yet the engineer makes more. Or ditch digger that thinks he should be paid more to make sure our sewage doesn't flood us out. Everyone sees how important their own contribution is, few give the same consideration to the importance of others' contributions, and thus think they are underpaid while others are overpaid..
But doctors are different. If I'm dying, I will pay every cent I own to not die. I will not pay every cent I own to increase my odds of not dying in a car accident by 15%. I'll pay some, but not everything. I'll pay some, but not everything, to increase the odds of the bridge not collapsing from 99.98% to 99.99%. That's the difference between a doctor and everything else. Until firefighters start charging on the scene, no other position in society has such a binary impact on my life. I get in a car accident and am rushed to the ER, either that doctor saves my life or I die. I get in a car to go for a drive, an engineer made it 3% less likely I get in that car accident in the first place. I think it's obvious why people will pay more for one service than the other. Engineers that don't, and complain about doctors getting paid more, sound exactly like a ditch digger complaining that society doesn't value his contribution enough and that he should be paid as much as an engineer.
I'm not suggesting engineers aren't valuable and important contributors to society. I'm responding to your whine about people valuing doctors more than engineers. Clean water, reliable power, reliable civic infrastructure, these are important things. Just like trash collectors are also vital to maintaining the basic sanitation necessary for civilization; I bet you aren't upset engineers make more than them, though. There are lots and lots of necessary functions that keep society going. Which indirectly keeps me in my accustomed lifestyle. Doctors, on the other hand, cure me when I am dying. When I am in pain, they make the pain stop. If you know anything about human nature, there is no mystery at all about why people value this direct, immediate impact on their life over a more indirect, less immediate impact on lifestyle.
I agree that market forces pushing the quality of education down is a problem. But the fact that "industry" is, in general, seeking higher and higher levels of education is not a bad thing (per se). Devaluing the market value of an education is also not an inherently bad thing, if that spurs people to invest in greater education. Maybe I am an optimist, but I simply do not see the downside to having a more highly educated populace. Of course, as you briefly mention, I think the value of an education has a much greater impact on an individual and a society than simply increasing a person's marketable value.
The vital difference between a doctor and an engineer is that I can live without a computer with a processor that is twice as fast, or an airplane that is more fuel efficient, or whatever engineers are currently designing. By definition, I can not live without my health. Guess which I (and most people) value more?
People aren't out getting 3,4 or 5 degrees in order to try and flip them to the next buyer. Degrees are not being commoditized and sold on a secondary market. These are fundamental differences between mortgages and student loans.
The fact that prices are spiking due to increased demand is a pretty fundamental law of economics. Are you suggesting we would be better off as a society if fewer people were seeking more education?
Yeah, that link A) doesn't cite in any way that a competitor uses the same material, it merely alleges it and B) also alleges that Gibson isn't violating any US law, which is false. They are in violation of the Lacey Act (assuming the facts as asserted by the DOJ are true). Given they make at least 1 demonstrably false claim - the DOJ is NOT enforcing some random Indian law, they are enforcing a US law - I am less inclined to take at face value their other claim.
A person who chooses their actions without concern as to whether or not they are moral (an amoral person), is unlikely to behave significantly better than a person who conciously chooses immoral actions.
I doubt there are very many people that choose an immoral action BECAUSE it is immoral. Most immoral actions comes from a combination of amorality (don't care about the moral implications) and greed, anger, laziness, etc. (some characteristic that makes the immoral action more attractive). Example: most people steal b/c they want something and don't care that stealing is immoral. They don't go out and steal specifically in order to be performing an immoral act. There are certainly exceptions to this, but I think it is true of the general masses.
Thank you, that is good to know. I"ll admit, I assumed there was a way to turn it off, but didn't know it was called the mini-toolbar. Which made Googling more difficult, and once I had figured out a workaround the issue, lost interest in spending time actually fixing it. I know, all the time in the world to post to Slashdot and complain, no time to find a solution. Thank you again.
Except sometimes it doesn't go away. It appears as soon as I open a workbook, and stays until I close and reopen the workbook. Which is annoying to do, so if I need the value the pop-up is covering, I arrow over to that cell. Still can't see the value b/c it is covered by the pop-up, but I can see it in the formula bar. Maybe this is a bug, maybe it is some weird boundary case I occasionally invoke unknowingly, but either way, I find it annoying. It completely outweighs the minor convenience of the pop-up for me.
Slashdot Mirror
At it's core, capitalism is that you own your own labor and your own product (if you produce something)
Until I take it from you b/c I have a bigger army. What's that, the government should prevent that from happening? So you think government should provide the services YOU want (protect your property and wealth), of course by taxing people. But government definitely shouldn't provide any services to anyone else that you disapprove of, b/c then taxation is theft.
I never said that the rich aren't getting a larger portion of the pie. I said that the pie is (has been) growing and everyone's portion is larger.
Except everyone's portion ISN'T getting larger. Proportionally, the middle class's portion is getting smaller, and the super-rich's portion is getting larger. How long do we have to wait until we complain about this? Until their larger portion has grown to 75% of the pie? 80%? 90%? As long as the rest of us has a subsistence level of existence (which not everyone does now)?
and I'll be damned if I let some lazy bastard with an entitlement complex demands I share because I have taken an unfair advantage.
Why is it that anyone that feels our current system is unfair must be a lazy slob that simply can't compete? Maybe I feel the system is unfair and that simply working harder to make sure I get mine would be contributing to a system that, again, I disapprove of. Maybe any system that has some people living in luxury while others literally die for lack of resources strikes me as immoral.
As for your assertion that capitalism is responsible for the overall better lifestyle (some) people enjoy, that's laughable. Technology has improved our lifestyle. Capitalism has supported some technological development, sometimes it has inhibited it. Government has supported some technological development, government has inhibited some.
That's kind of a fucked-up way of viewing society. Every time I stop at a red light, even though I am late and would rather blow through it, is b/c of the government's threat of violence? Every time I pay for my groceries rather than steal them is because of my fear of getting caught and violently punished? Some of us recognize and value the benefits of living in a civil society. Implicit to that is the idea that I have to make some personal compromises for the benefit of all. One of these is paying taxes in order to pay for items that serve the common good. Sure, I disagree with how some of my taxes are spent, maybe I disagree with how high my taxes are, but this is one of those "compromises" society is based on.
tldr; Only a sociopath participates in society SOLELY due to fear of reprisal for failure to do so.
I have no desire to weigh in one way or the other on whether working 80 hours/week is "stealing" jobs from someone else, but I do have one question. How does freelancing create jobs? Are you literally convincing people to hire you to do tasks they otherwise would not have accomplished?
The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.
The pharmaceutical industry is already competing with these drugs. Given the current ease of getting an eight ball vs. getting a prescription, I just don't see legalization causing large numbers of drug users to switch their drug of preference. Legalizing would simply allow the industry to add new items to their catalog. And I imagine that Pfizer will be much better at marketing "Pfizer Brand Cocaine - Now that's smooth!" than someone whose business model has been based on black market realities.
As for the specific case of marijuana, sure I could grow it. Just like I could brew my own beer, distill my own liquor. But I'm lazy and picky and would rather spend money on high quality substances than spend time on lower quality substances. I think I am not alone in that sentiment. This wouldn't necessarily benefit Pfizer et al, but I imagine Monsanto might have an interest.
It's possible, I suppose. However, the scenario we are discussing is the narrow one where it is an actual traumatic injury, with an external cause. These are generally fractures, lacerations, burns, swelling, poisoning, traumatic injuries. About the only one I could see being a concern would be something like an illegal drug overdose. The doctor would certainly base treatment on the exact nature of the poisoning. But people already lie about those sorts of things, nothing to do with insurance concerns. I really can't imagine any other injuries where exactly how the injury occurred would affect treatment of the injury itself.
This entire thread, and in fact article, revolves around the concept of expanding the cause of injury codes. I was responding to a comment that it is a plot by insurance companies to begin collecting these codes in order to have greater leeway to deny coverage. It's all about context. Speaking of which, I imagine you're right that worker's comp and no-fault claims closely scrutinize cause of injury (I hadn't thought of these cases). But can anyone seriously argue that is an abuse?
It goes back to intent, which we mostly have to rely on context to infer. If we're rehearsing a play, sure, nothing wrong with those words. Or if we're drunk and bitching about our wives and I make a poor taste joke, it shouldn't be illegal. But actually intending to murder someone and taking steps towards that goal SHOULD be illegal, IMO. It is certainly a grey area when you start judging other people's intentions, but I think necessary. You say criminalize the giving of funds, but giving funds isn't illegal. You then have to include the aspect of saying "Here's money for murdering my wife". Which makes not the action illegal, but the context as judged by the words is illegal. You're still making the words themselves meaningful in a legal sense, just one step removed. I'm not sure why that is cleaner.
Ok, I think that applies everywhere (the general rule, not necessarily your specific examples). Insurance companies have byzantine policies. What you are listing are ICD-9 diagnosis codes, however. I'm referring to the ICD-9 Coded Cause of Injury (E codes). These are the codes that tell HOW an injury occurred, not WHAT the injury was. And of course, only apply to classified injuries, not diseases or disorders such as you list. I think that is why so many people are confused here - E codes are actually pretty damn rare, and mostly only of interest to Injury Prevention folks. Many healthcare providers don't bother with them, specifically because they have no impact on billing.
In this context, ICD-9 is generally used to mean injury diagnosis code (what is wrong), not coded cause of injury (how it happened). Both are part of the ICD-9 spec, but completely distinct inside that spec. If the code value starts with an E, it's coded cause of injury. If it is a value from 800-999, it's an injury diagnosis code.
How? Maybe it differs from state to state, but in NC, the E code isn't a required field on claims forms. Most of the hospital billing systems I am familiar don't even store these - they are only stored in the clinical systems. They certainly aren't included on any claims forms. I'll admit, I'm only familiar with hospital systems, so maybe ambulatory care is different.
Simmer down, big boy. ICD-9 diagnosis codes are just that, diagnosis codes. Completely distinct from ICD-9 Coded Cause of Injury codes. They have distinct value ranges and different labels in the DG1 segment of HL7 and everything.
Just b/c you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean those of us that do are just making it up.
ICD-9 DOES have detailed causation, although not nearly as detailed as ICD-10, it looks like. ICD-9 has "Coded Cause of Injury Codes", AKA "E Codes" (they all start with E). These are distinct from the Injury Diagnosis Codes, which you provided examples of above. For instance -> E029.2 - Rough Housing and Horseplay. Or E885.4 - Accidental fall from Snowboard. These seem to fit your criteria of plausibly deniable causes of injury, are currently available, yet aren't being used by insurance companies.
What kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than typing?
Right, and what kind of nonsense is it to believe that we should throw people in jail for nothing other than saying words? Just b/c those words are "I will pay you $10,000 to kill my wife", really when you boil it down, all I did was say words. Context be damned.
Neither the government (Medicaid, Medicare) nor private insurance companies currently base payment on injury codes, so I'm not sure why you think they will begin to now.
Considering that insurance billing currently has nothing to do with injury coding, and this is merely the next iteration of it, I think your paranoia is misplaced.
People already lie to their physician all the time; I doubt this will have a significant impact on that. And if it does, so what? You think the doctor is going to treat an arm broken at church differently than an arm broken skateboarding?
I'll accept your approximation (for the sake of argument), but it's beside the point. There are many many invaluable, vital positions that contribute to society. I'm sure there are farmers sitting around complaining that engineers couldn't live without the farmer feeding him, yet the engineer makes more. Or ditch digger that thinks he should be paid more to make sure our sewage doesn't flood us out. Everyone sees how important their own contribution is, few give the same consideration to the importance of others' contributions, and thus think they are underpaid while others are overpaid..
But doctors are different. If I'm dying, I will pay every cent I own to not die. I will not pay every cent I own to increase my odds of not dying in a car accident by 15%. I'll pay some, but not everything. I'll pay some, but not everything, to increase the odds of the bridge not collapsing from 99.98% to 99.99%. That's the difference between a doctor and everything else. Until firefighters start charging on the scene, no other position in society has such a binary impact on my life. I get in a car accident and am rushed to the ER, either that doctor saves my life or I die. I get in a car to go for a drive, an engineer made it 3% less likely I get in that car accident in the first place. I think it's obvious why people will pay more for one service than the other. Engineers that don't, and complain about doctors getting paid more, sound exactly like a ditch digger complaining that society doesn't value his contribution enough and that he should be paid as much as an engineer.
I'm not suggesting engineers aren't valuable and important contributors to society. I'm responding to your whine about people valuing doctors more than engineers. Clean water, reliable power, reliable civic infrastructure, these are important things. Just like trash collectors are also vital to maintaining the basic sanitation necessary for civilization; I bet you aren't upset engineers make more than them, though. There are lots and lots of necessary functions that keep society going. Which indirectly keeps me in my accustomed lifestyle. Doctors, on the other hand, cure me when I am dying. When I am in pain, they make the pain stop. If you know anything about human nature, there is no mystery at all about why people value this direct, immediate impact on their life over a more indirect, less immediate impact on lifestyle.
I agree that market forces pushing the quality of education down is a problem. But the fact that "industry" is, in general, seeking higher and higher levels of education is not a bad thing (per se). Devaluing the market value of an education is also not an inherently bad thing, if that spurs people to invest in greater education. Maybe I am an optimist, but I simply do not see the downside to having a more highly educated populace. Of course, as you briefly mention, I think the value of an education has a much greater impact on an individual and a society than simply increasing a person's marketable value.
The vital difference between a doctor and an engineer is that I can live without a computer with a processor that is twice as fast, or an airplane that is more fuel efficient, or whatever engineers are currently designing. By definition, I can not live without my health. Guess which I (and most people) value more?
People aren't out getting 3,4 or 5 degrees in order to try and flip them to the next buyer. Degrees are not being commoditized and sold on a secondary market. These are fundamental differences between mortgages and student loans.
The fact that prices are spiking due to increased demand is a pretty fundamental law of economics. Are you suggesting we would be better off as a society if fewer people were seeking more education?
Yeah, that link A) doesn't cite in any way that a competitor uses the same material, it merely alleges it and B) also alleges that Gibson isn't violating any US law, which is false. They are in violation of the Lacey Act (assuming the facts as asserted by the DOJ are true). Given they make at least 1 demonstrably false claim - the DOJ is NOT enforcing some random Indian law, they are enforcing a US law - I am less inclined to take at face value their other claim.
A person who chooses their actions without concern as to whether or not they are moral (an amoral person), is unlikely to behave significantly better than a person who conciously chooses immoral actions.
I doubt there are very many people that choose an immoral action BECAUSE it is immoral. Most immoral actions comes from a combination of amorality (don't care about the moral implications) and greed, anger, laziness, etc. (some characteristic that makes the immoral action more attractive). Example: most people steal b/c they want something and don't care that stealing is immoral. They don't go out and steal specifically in order to be performing an immoral act. There are certainly exceptions to this, but I think it is true of the general masses.
Thank you, that is good to know. I"ll admit, I assumed there was a way to turn it off, but didn't know it was called the mini-toolbar. Which made Googling more difficult, and once I had figured out a workaround the issue, lost interest in spending time actually fixing it. I know, all the time in the world to post to Slashdot and complain, no time to find a solution. Thank you again.
Except sometimes it doesn't go away. It appears as soon as I open a workbook, and stays until I close and reopen the workbook. Which is annoying to do, so if I need the value the pop-up is covering, I arrow over to that cell. Still can't see the value b/c it is covered by the pop-up, but I can see it in the formula bar. Maybe this is a bug, maybe it is some weird boundary case I occasionally invoke unknowingly, but either way, I find it annoying. It completely outweighs the minor convenience of the pop-up for me.