What you say is correct and absolutely believe that physician should be paid for necessary work. However, EHR systems also facilitate the performance of extra work for the sole purpose of being able to bump the E&M (i.e., office visit) code to the next pay level.
The problem with your scenario is that that extra 5% is *not* necessary to the care of the patient and is done simply to be able to charge a higher fee. That, my friend, is certainly fraud. Your charity analogy is not relevant here. You can give *your* money to whomever you wish, but the money here is *not* yours. It comes from someone else. A better analogy would be someone who is paid by the hour "checking a few additional things" simply to get the time over the pay hump. Would *you* be OK with that if you were paying?
If a procedure can legitimately be coded in multiple ways, then as the payer I would certainly pay you for the least expensive code regardless of the code you billed me for. That should be agreeable to you since it is also playing by the same rules.
The notion of a naturally free market is an unrealistic utopian idea akin to that of communism. It sounds really great on paper or in words, however, it will never actually appear in the real world due those pesky things called human beings. They just refuse to operate according to the theory.
It's not a question of guilt or innocence, Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. That is not in question at all. The question is whether he was legally justified in doing so. Unfortunately, one side of the story (Trayvon) has been removed and cannot be heard.
A human being *died*. A young man was shot and killed while bearing only a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. An investigation of more than simply accepting the word of the shooter is definitely warranted.
> > "Nice" isn't a business model. It's hardly even a worthwhile adjective. >
Egad, I would *never* wish to have any sort of dealings, business or social, with you. "Nice" are all of those things which are not strictly required but can make all the difference between a pleasant experience and a poor one.
Download music from iTunes, and you can only play it on a limited number of computers (try it and you'll find out).
Nope, been unencrptyted now for many years (and with iTunes Match Apple will even give you a nice 256kb DRM-free audio file of everything you ever ripped from a CD).
So that was totally wrong.
Of course, iTunes, is NOT proprietary in any way, nor is the format of the information managed by it. Apple freely provides the necessary information for non-Apple programs/devices to do similar functions.
Locking hardware to software.
This was a particularly amusing error because you almost had a point! If only you had reversed it.
But in fact Apple does not lock hardware to software at all. Apple, for example, shipped bootcamp with the first Intel Mac.
So, your iGadget is not locked to software? You can freely connect it to another gadget which contains NO Apple software and actually move things back and forth?
Pushing of proprietary standards.
Like the industry standard HTML5?
Or the industry standard video codec h.264?
Or forcing the music industry to drop DRM?
Apple has not pushed proprietary standards since AppleTalk.
What about the mag-safe connector, the iPod connector, keyboard, etc? These are not proprietary? What about the standard USB?
Being the middle-man.
I can download music from anywhere and load it on an iPhone.
Without software from Apple?
Free apps pay nothing to Apple.
I can put any number of PDF's on a iPhone, or read Kindle books with which not one cent went to Apple...
"A" middle man? Sure. THE middle man? Not even close.
If Apple is not THE middle man, the please explain where you get the apps if it is not via Apple's store. Having only ONE store certainly places Apple in the middle.
CUPS was developed long before Apple bought it. Have you ever tried doing something in CUPS on OSX that is easily possible on CUPS in Linux? CUPS on OSX is some kind of franken-CUPS.
Before Apple bought CUPS there was a CUPS aware printer driver available for Windows. That was great, one printer driver for just about everything. Sigh, that hasn't been updated since the purchase and the old driver no longer works with CUPS. Not exactly an advancement.
Perhaps your rant applies in *your* world, but it certainly doesn't apply in mine. The company I work for has been using OpenOffice.org quite happily for years. It does everything we need to do. We've integrated it into a majority of our workflows. We've felt no loss from not having either Microsoft Office or even Windows. Yeah, we're a double conundrum. We're a long-term successful business who doesn't use Microsoft Office or Windows. And we're not even a remotely IT-related business, nor are most of our employees computer experts.
The problem is, that many mac folks think that a mac is *the* solution to this problem for *everyone*. Thinking differently simply means you have some sort of mental issue.
I've always found it interesting that people present the artificial *restriction* of OSX to only Apple hardware is actually a benefit. Apple provides more choice! The makers of other hardware get dinged for a decision made by Apple. Amazing.
Unfortunately, many mac user in my experience as accurately described as smug assholes wrt to computers. I've been guilty of creating quite a few of them by recommending Macs to friends and relatives over the years when asked advice about purchasing a computer.
It is ironic and annoying to have someone ask my advice about computers, take that advice, be very happy, and then later proceed to tell me how terrible my choice of computer (Linux) is and how much happier I'd be with a Mac. I've never met a mac user who could be convinced that I actually *prefer* Linux to a mac. They simply think I just don't know any better or am being willfully ignorant. At the very least, they think I should buy a mac just for the hardware.
You've got to be kidding, really. Apple absolutely refuses to allow anyone to use OS/X on non-apple hardware and you spin it as a *benefit* of Apple hardware. The only reason you can run other OS's on Apple hardware is that other companies aren't like Apple. That's a real benefit.
We have four of these that we have used for years. They work great under linux, no muss no fuss. Cups will drive them just fine. We've never actually run them them under Windows.:-)
A majority of people who voted in the Prop 8 referendum voted for it. That is NOT the same as a majority of voters (e.g., all people who can vote)
Prop 8 was actually passed by ~36% of eligible voters. The CA amendment process is borked. A constitution should *never* be amendable by a minority of possible voters. That's just nuts, regardless of the subject matter.
Note that amendments to the federal constitution must be passed by majorities of all *possible* voters not just ones who bother to actually vote. Not voting = No.
The correct approach is to more narrowly tailor benefits to childbearing heterosexual married couples, rather than extend them to a group that cannot possibly create children without support.
Actually, since it would quite easy to implement, the correct thing would be to tailor benefits to any couple with children. Please explain how the manner in which the children arrive is even relevant. Children are children. Again and again you simply suspend all of your criteria when it would apply equally to heterosexual couples.
So, then, if we're talking about marriage and spousal rights for adoptive parents in a gay couple, that I can understand. But we're not. We're talking about a blanket extension for a group that is categorically unable to reproduce.
This argument is NOT valid unless you apply to *all* couples who are "categorically unable to reproduce" which does, in fact, include some heterosexual couples. When you allow non-fertile heterosexual couples, but deny same-sex ones the rationale is solely gender, not fecundity. You are disingenuous. Your argument is simply non-rational at that point and you've crossed over the bigotry line.
Why can't you just be honest and just say that you don't think that same-sex couples should have such rights instead of hiding behind straw men?
Criminy, but you go to great lengths to support your illogic. Doesn't it make your head swim?
So, children derive no benefits from marriage according to you. Or is it that they do, but only for an opposite-sex couple whether the children are naturally conceived or not. Your focus is NOT on the children, it is merely the gender of the parents.
I think the term bigot applies. When given couples whose sole and only difference is that one is a same-gender couple you always choose to deny benefits to the same gender couple. Gender is the sole deciding factor. You justify this by simply saying that no system is perfect. Huh? I hope that you are never subjected to someone applying such logic to your life.
Because CA allows only a simple majority of cast ballots to change the constitution, 29.5% of actual eligible voters made the change in Prop 8. Yeah for democracy! Sigh. A minority was able to change the fundamental document of the state. Is that scary or what? Regardless of the subject matter.
It was only 29.5% of the people (eligible voters) who made the change, not a majority. The process is flawed regardless of the amendment. If merely allow a simple majority of people who cast a ballot to change the constitution abuse is sure to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you're just a youngling. :-)
What you say is correct and absolutely believe that physician should be paid for necessary work. However, EHR systems also facilitate the performance of extra work for the sole purpose of being able to bump the E&M (i.e., office visit) code to the next pay level.
The problem with your scenario is that that extra 5% is *not* necessary to the care of the patient and is done simply to be able to charge a higher fee. That, my friend, is certainly fraud. Your charity analogy is not relevant here. You can give *your* money to whomever you wish, but the money here is *not* yours. It comes from someone else. A better analogy would be someone who is paid by the hour "checking a few additional things" simply to get the time over the pay hump. Would *you* be OK with that if you were paying?
If a procedure can legitimately be coded in multiple ways, then as the payer I would certainly pay you for the least expensive code regardless of the code you billed me for. That should be agreeable to you since it is also playing by the same rules.
The notion of a naturally free market is an unrealistic utopian idea akin to that of communism. It sounds really great on paper or in words, however, it will never actually appear in the real world due those pesky things called human beings. They just refuse to operate according to the theory.
Go figure.
It's not a question of guilt or innocence, Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. That is not in question at all. The question is whether he was legally justified in doing so. Unfortunately, one side of the story (Trayvon) has been removed and cannot be heard.
A human being *died*. A young man was shot and killed while bearing only a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. An investigation of more than simply accepting the word of the shooter is definitely warranted.
>
> "Nice" isn't a business model. It's hardly even a worthwhile adjective.
>
Egad, I would *never* wish to have any sort of dealings, business or social, with you. "Nice" are all of those things which are not strictly required but can make all the difference between a pleasant experience and a poor one.
Download music from iTunes, and you can only play it on a limited number of computers (try it and you'll find out).
Nope, been unencrptyted now for many years (and with iTunes Match Apple will even give you a nice 256kb DRM-free audio file of everything you ever ripped from a CD).
So that was totally wrong.
Of course, iTunes, is NOT proprietary in any way, nor is the format of the information managed by it. Apple freely provides the necessary information for non-Apple programs/devices to do similar functions.
Locking hardware to software.
This was a particularly amusing error because you almost had a point! If only you had reversed it.
But in fact Apple does not lock hardware to software at all. Apple, for example, shipped bootcamp with the first Intel Mac.
So, your iGadget is not locked to software? You can freely connect it to another gadget which contains NO Apple software and actually move things back and forth?
Pushing of proprietary standards.
Like the industry standard HTML5?
Or the industry standard video codec h.264?
Or forcing the music industry to drop DRM?
Apple has not pushed proprietary standards since AppleTalk.
What about the mag-safe connector, the iPod connector, keyboard, etc? These are not proprietary? What about the standard USB?
Being the middle-man.
I can download music from anywhere and load it on an iPhone.
Without software from Apple?
Free apps pay nothing to Apple.
I can put any number of PDF's on a iPhone, or read Kindle books with which not one cent went to Apple...
"A" middle man? Sure. THE middle man? Not even close.
If Apple is not THE middle man, the please explain where you get the apps if it is not via Apple's store. Having only ONE store certainly places Apple in the middle.
CUPS was developed long before Apple bought it. Have you ever tried doing something in CUPS on OSX that is easily possible on CUPS in Linux? CUPS on OSX is some kind of franken-CUPS.
Before Apple bought CUPS there was a CUPS aware printer driver available for Windows. That was great, one printer driver for just about everything. Sigh, that hasn't been updated since the purchase and the old driver no longer works with CUPS. Not exactly an advancement.
All about you is it?
Screw the rest of the folks who might like to homeschool but can't because they actually have to work so that their kids can have a place to live.
Perhaps your rant applies in *your* world, but it certainly doesn't apply in mine. The company I work for has been using OpenOffice.org quite happily for years. It does everything we need to do. We've integrated it into a majority of our workflows. We've felt no loss from not having either Microsoft Office or even Windows. Yeah, we're a double conundrum. We're a long-term successful business who doesn't use Microsoft Office or Windows. And we're not even a remotely IT-related business, nor are most of our employees computer experts.
In short, I think you are completely full of it.
This was the SCA virus.
You've obviously never paid a software license that was based on # cpus, otherwise you might actually care very much.
The problem is, that many mac folks think that a mac is *the* solution to this problem for *everyone*. Thinking differently simply means you have some sort of mental issue.
I've always found it interesting that people present the artificial *restriction* of OSX to only Apple hardware is actually a benefit. Apple provides more choice! The makers of other hardware get dinged for a decision made by Apple. Amazing.
Unfortunately, many mac user in my experience as accurately described as smug assholes wrt to computers. I've been guilty of creating quite a few of them by recommending Macs to friends and relatives over the years when asked advice about purchasing a computer.
It is ironic and annoying to have someone ask my advice about computers, take that advice, be very happy, and then later proceed to tell me how terrible my choice of computer (Linux) is and how much happier I'd be with a Mac. I've never met a mac user who could be convinced that I actually *prefer* Linux to a mac. They simply think I just don't know any better or am being willfully ignorant. At the very least, they think I should buy a mac just for the hardware.
You've got to be kidding, really. Apple absolutely refuses to allow anyone to use OS/X on non-apple hardware and you spin it as a *benefit* of Apple hardware. The only reason you can run other OS's on Apple hardware is that other companies aren't like Apple. That's a real benefit.
We have four of these that we have used for years. They work great under linux, no muss no fuss. Cups will drive them just fine. We've never actually run them them under Windows. :-)
A majority of people who voted in the Prop 8 referendum voted for it. That is NOT the same as a majority of voters (e.g., all people who can vote)
Prop 8 was actually passed by ~36% of eligible voters. The CA amendment process is borked. A constitution should *never* be amendable by a minority of possible voters. That's just nuts, regardless of the subject matter.
Note that amendments to the federal constitution must be passed by majorities of all *possible* voters not just ones who bother to actually vote. Not voting = No.
I agree with you 100%. I've done this many times, myself.
Actually, since it would quite easy to implement, the correct thing would be to tailor benefits to any couple with children. Please explain how the manner in which the children arrive is even relevant. Children are children. Again and again you simply suspend all of your criteria when it would apply equally to heterosexual couples.
This argument is NOT valid unless you apply to *all* couples who are "categorically unable to reproduce" which does, in fact, include some heterosexual couples. When you allow non-fertile heterosexual couples, but deny same-sex ones the rationale is solely gender, not fecundity. You are disingenuous. Your argument is simply non-rational at that point and you've crossed over the bigotry line.
Why can't you just be honest and just say that you don't think that same-sex couples should have such rights instead of hiding behind straw men?
Criminy, but you go to great lengths to support your illogic. Doesn't it make your head swim?
So, children derive no benefits from marriage according to you. Or is it that they do, but only for an opposite-sex couple whether the children are naturally conceived or not. Your focus is NOT on the children, it is merely the gender of the parents.
I think the term bigot applies. When given couples whose sole and only difference is that one is a same-gender couple you always choose to deny benefits to the same gender couple. Gender is the sole deciding factor. You justify this by simply saying that no system is perfect. Huh? I hope that you are never subjected to someone applying such logic to your life.
Because CA allows only a simple majority of cast ballots to change the constitution, 29.5% of actual eligible voters made the change in Prop 8. Yeah for democracy! Sigh. A minority was able to change the fundamental document of the state. Is that scary or what? Regardless of the subject matter.
It was only 29.5% of the people (eligible voters) who made the change, not a majority. The process is flawed regardless of the amendment. If merely allow a simple majority of people who cast a ballot to change the constitution abuse is sure to follow.