Nah, it was booted because it referenced another mobile platform in the meta-data.Fan wrote: heart attack? There's an app for that.
Clear and Present Danger
Moderator: Super Moderators
SquidInk wrote: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/42 ... l-devices/
We pay through the nose for this? What a corrupt mess healthcare has become. Romney will fix it!
And this is what happens when revenues to hospitals are slashed. Medicare has had an automatic across the board 5% reduction built into their reimbursement fee schedules since 2007. That is on top of the targeted reductions put ionto place since 2007. Unfortunately, software is not "sexy" enough when compared to building a new wing (for example) or, at the otehr extreme, keeping the doors open, period. Many hospitals have closed their doors entirely due to markedly declining revenues and and increases in free care patients.
Many (most?) hospitals are for profit enterprises, are they not? If they fail to compete they should be gone, right? 'Healthcare' in the US is hopelessly broken. Insane levels of greed and corruption across multiple 'big' industries and government entities have gotten us to this point.
Or are you advocating for yet another propped up model, like big ag and big auto?
Or are you advocating for yet another propped up model, like big ag and big auto?
Last edited by SquidInk on 10-19-2012 10:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
SquidInk wrote: Many (most?) hospitals are for profit enterprises, are they not? If they fail to compete they should be gone, right? 'Healthcare' in the US is hopelessly broken. Insane levels of greed and corruption across multiple 'big' industries and government entities have gotten us to this point.
Or are you advocating for yet another propped up model, like big ag and big auto?
No, actually most hospitals are either non-profit, or, not-for-profit.
What I am advocating is at least being able to charge for, what something costs to provide, which is actually being prevented, by law, by the government. Let me explain how this works.
In today's society, hospitals are required to accept whatever Medicare (the government) decides they should pay for something - whether that something is a surgical procedure, or a test, or an inpatient stay (room and board while in the hospital). They set the rates. And, if the costs incurred by the hospital exceed those costs, then, the hospital has to absorb those costs. Hospitals are prevented, by law, from balance billing.
And, true there are those horror stories of the ten-dollar aspirin, but, what an entity "charges" and what they get "paid" are two entirely different matters altogether.
Let me give you an example. One of my job duties at work is to maiitain the radiology departments CDM (charge description master). This is a list of all the exams we perform. We have to adhere to standards concerning how a test or procedure is named, cpt codes used in charging, as well as setting a price. We can charge whatever we like - doesn't mean we're going to get paid that amount. So, for example, a two-view chest x-ray, we set at a certain amount, on paper. Let's say it's $150. That $150 is based on a number of factors - the cost for the staff to register the patient into the hospital system the cost of the building in order to house the machinery and staff, the cost of the staff to take perform the exam, the cost of the archiving system to store the image(s), the cost of the equipment to take the image(s), the cost for the computer system and related software and cabling, the cost of the electricity to operate the equipment as well as lights, etc, the cost of security to protect the patient from the drug addicts for other services we provide, the cost for the heating/ ventilation system to keep the patent warm or cold depending on the season and so on, the cost of the mortgage for the facility (you think this is free?), the cost for property taxes (you think this is free?) Because, practically, a lot of other people depend on the income generated from staff obtaining those studies in order to get paid. And the reason for that is because patients and families expect a certain level of care and appearance in a hospital.
In reality, we don't get paid the figure we charge. We typically get paid 30% of what we charge.
So, let's say that I go to get my car repaired, or buy groceries, or get a haircut, or see lawyer to get a will prepared. Are you proposing that I have the right and that society should impose on all workers the concept that the purchaser can decide that, across the board, what they feel that they should pay? I like that idea.....
I would LOVE to be able to tell the guy at the gas station "yeah, I know that gas costs $4 a gallon, but I'm only going to give you $1, suck it up", or the lawyer, "yeah I know you're charging me $500 for that session for me and my wife to make out wills and power of attorney documents, but you know what, I'm giving you $100 - suck it up", or at the grocery store, "yeah, I know it says that it costs me $125 this week for groceries, but I'm only paying you $30, suck it up".....
Now, we both know that any business wouldn't be able to stay open given that option. And, the response to losses incurred by any business is to, first, reduce services and fire staff. And, this is what has been occurring in healthcare.
The difference between my example, and healthcare is that hospitals are prevented by law, from balance billing on Medicare. In order to accept Medicare patients, you HAVE TO accept what Medicare says that they will pay.
Medicare also sets the bar for what other insurers will pay, the logic being "Well, you accepted Medicare's reimbursement, so there' no reason not to accept their rates for our patients as well."
The other option is to do what some hospitals and a growing list of doctors are now choosing to do, and that is to no longer accept Medicare patients and stick with HMOs and private insurers. And, this is occurring and this is where universal healthcare will ultimately fail, because it makes a number of erroneous assumptions. Among these are that all costs related to the provision of healthcare can be controlled. What this means is that everyone involved in healthcare will never see raises in salaries or benefits because those costs will need to be controlled. Secondly, all supply costs will need to be set in stone. So, all those items that patients and families expect out of healthcare today - pacemakers, artificial hips and so forth, the cost just for those SUPPLIES (forget about actually inserting the device just the device itself) will need to be set in stone. Don't you think that the medical device companies and their employees will have something to say about that?
Power - all power (gas, coal, oil) this will have to be set in stone in order to keep prices from fluctuating, right? Otherwise hospitals will be forced to pass them along to the patients, and we can't have that, right? And, what about taxes and water fees municipalities and the state charge? Those will either have to be forgiven or they can;t rise. And mortgage payments. Do you think that the banks will go along with this? And, how long do you think that young people will view healthcare a a valid career choice knowing that entry-level pay will be the norm for their career?
Unfortunately, in the real world, there more people than just those who a patient actually sees in that single visit who are involved. And, this hasn't been thought out well, enough in the current Medicare-driven healthcare model nor in Obama Care. And, this is where the system will ultimately fall apart. It seeks to control costs, but then the facilities are then left to decide how and where to apply the reductions. They can only say "No" so many times to creditors and suppliers (because they want to get paid, or they will either file lawsuits, or just not provide supplies), so staff gets cuts - as is currently occurring across the country. In many cases experienced staff are being let go, and more inexperienced staff are being hired to replace them (fresh out of school). That should be comforting to know that, in order to put a system into place the knowledge base is being compromised......
From C2C, last night:SquidInk wrote: ** It's critical for each of us to understand (independently & of our own study) how important food sourcing is in the philosophical struggle against a corrupted system of laws. We can not allow the system to provide our food for us, or even allow them to act as providers, indirectly, by setting up excessive & exclusive checkpoints along the pathway to market.
Related: showthread.php?postid=664207#post664207
Also related: showthread.php?postid=678512#post678512
More: showthread.php?threadid=33233&highlight ... +terrorism
...and: showthread.php?threadid=43385&highlight=final+absurdity
Last edited by SquidInk on 01-14-2013 12:04 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ ... saDay.aspxSquidInk wrote: ** First and foremost, we must make a decision, once and for all, as to whether we are a nation that embraces 'right & wrong' or 'legal & illegal' as a template, against which we measure our short and long term actions.
Yep he's from the ACLU - an organization with a starkly split personality, imho.Three Felonies a Day is the story of how citizens from all walks of life—doctors, accountants, businessmen, political activists, and others—have found themselves the targets of federal prosecutions, despite sensibly believing that they did nothing wrong, broke no laws, and harmed not a single person. From the perspective of both a legal practitioner who has represented the wrongfully-accused, and of a legal observer who has written about these trends for the past four decades, Three Felonies a Day brings home how individual liberty is threatened by zealous crusades from the Department of Justice. Even the most intelligent and informed citizen (including lawyers and judges, for that matter) cannot predict with any reasonable assurance whether a wide range of seemingly ordinary activities might be regarded by federal prosecutors as felonies.
Related: showthread.php?postid=649302#post649302
Last edited by SquidInk on 01-14-2013 12:04 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/ ... reme-court** First and foremost, we must make a decision, once and for all, as to whether we are a nation that embraces 'right & wrong' or 'legal & illegal' as a template, against which we measure our short and long term actions.
** It's critical for each of us to understand (independently & of our own study) how important food sourcing is in the philosophical struggle against a corrupted system of laws.
** Patent law, 'intellectual property rights', and copyright law need to be reformed so that they once again play their long held roles. These devices have become the tools of economic tyrants, and in the hands of these self serving few, such laws will stifle creativity & innovation.
The taxpayers foot(ed) the bill for the research. Don't be fooled. But, in any case, now all your seeds are belong to them.On the one side is Bowman, a single 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer who is still tending the same acres of land as his father before him in rural south-western Indiana. On the other is a gigantic multibillion dollar agricultural business famed for its zealous protection of its commercial rights.
Not that Bowman sees it that way. "I really don't consider it as David and Goliath. I don't think of it in those terms. I think of it in terms of right and wrong," Bowman told The Guardian in an interview.
[...]
Bowman, who has farmed the same stretch of land for most of the past four decades and grew up on a farm, ended up on Monsanto's radar for using such seeds – bought from a local grain elevator, rather than Monsanto – for year after year and replanting part of each crop. He did not do so for his main crop of soybeans, but rather for a smaller "second late season planting" usually planted on a field that had just been harvested for wheat. "We have always had the right to go to an elevator, buy some 'junk grain' and use it for seed if you desire," Bowman said.
To put it mildly, Monsanto disagrees. The firm insists that it maintains patent rights on its genetically modified seeds even if sold by a third party with no restrictions put on its use – even if the seeds are actually only descendants of the original Monsanto seeds. To that end it sued Bowman, eventually winning a legal settlement of some ,456 (£53,500) against him for infringing the firm's patent rights. Monsanto says that if it allowed Bowman to keep replanting his seeds it would undermine its business model, endangering the expensive research that it uses to produce advanced agricultural products.
As for the 'right' to do business, freely enter into contracts without seeking institutional 'approval', etc., - the so called 'supreme' court will decide whether or not we were 'endowed by our creator' with such a right. They will 'interpret' the Constitution for us, and clarify what is legal and illegal. It's looking pretty bleak for small time America.
What could possibly go wrong?
Last edited by SquidInk on 02-13-2013 11:21 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/ ... teGain.pdf
Click through to the linked doc - there are charts!Industry-sponsored research effectively converts
land-grant universities into corporate contractors,
diverting their research capacity away from projects
that serve the public good. Agribusinesses use sponsored
land-grant research — with its imprimatur of
academic objectivity — to convince regulators of the
safety or efficacy of new crops or food products.
Growing dependence on corporate funding discourages
academics from pursuing research that might
challenge the business practices of their funders or
that irks money-hungry administrators who grant
tenure to professors. A 2005 University of Wisconsin
survey of land-grant agricultural scientists found that
the amount of grant and contract money that professors
generate has a significant influence over their
tenure and salaries.This chilling effect discourages
academic research on environmental, public health
and food safety risks related to industrial agriculture
— and explains the sparse research on alternatives to
the dominant agriculture model. Conflict-of-interest
policies at public universities and academic journals
have failed to address the biasing effect of industry
money on science.
[...]
At the South Dakota State University (SDSU), corporate
influence extends all the way to the top. SDSU
president David Chicoine joined Monsanto’s board
of directors in 2009 and received 0,000 from
Monsanto the first year, more than his academic
salary.
Simultaneously acting as a director of the world’s
largest seed company and the leader of South Dakota’s
largest public research institute raised obvious
conflict-of-interest concerns.One state senator
proposed legislation barring Chicoine’s corporate
appointment, observing that Monsanto was “trying
to buy influence at the university by buying influence
with the president” and that “makes it look like we’re
in the hip pocket of Monsanto.”
Last edited by SquidInk on 02-19-2013 12:50 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Doka, Fan -- thanks for weighing in.
I'm not sure how this kind of thinking took root. I do know this: people who would support Monsanto in this are not thinking clearly. What if you couldn't buy a classic car second hand without fear of being sued by Ford or Gm - or worse yet, jailed? What if swap meets, thrift shops, and antique stores didn't exist? How about the time honored kids' hobbies, like collecting old comic books, dolls, sports cards, transistor radios, or any of a million other things?
Of course the Monsanto types turn it around, and if you oppose their bullcrap, then it's you who are anti-American, anti-freedom & liberty... or possibly 'socialist'! Go tell that one to Mr. Bowman. He may be 75, but I bet he still has a knuckle sandwich for the person who says he's un-American. Good on him.
I'm not sure how this kind of thinking took root. I do know this: people who would support Monsanto in this are not thinking clearly. What if you couldn't buy a classic car second hand without fear of being sued by Ford or Gm - or worse yet, jailed? What if swap meets, thrift shops, and antique stores didn't exist? How about the time honored kids' hobbies, like collecting old comic books, dolls, sports cards, transistor radios, or any of a million other things?
Of course the Monsanto types turn it around, and if you oppose their bullcrap, then it's you who are anti-American, anti-freedom & liberty... or possibly 'socialist'! Go tell that one to Mr. Bowman. He may be 75, but I bet he still has a knuckle sandwich for the person who says he's un-American. Good on him.
Last edited by SquidInk on 03-08-2013 04:38 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Not quite a subsidy, I guess. But the implied backstop of taxpayer bailout nets these businesses the unnatural advantage of artificially low rates, once again making it nearly impossible for effective competitors to arise.SquidInk wrote: ** The average person *must* take the time to understand our fraudulent system of money. It's corrupt from top to bottom.
- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-2 ... year-.html
On television, in interviews and in meetings with investors, executives of the biggest U.S. banks -- notably JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon -- make the case that size is a competitive advantage. It helps them lower costs and vie for customers on an international scale. Limiting it, they warn, would impair profitability and weaken the country’s position in global finance.
So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?
Granted, it’s a hard concept to swallow. It’s also crucial to understanding why the big banks present such a threat to the global economy.
Last edited by SquidInk on 02-21-2013 10:23 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
Squid, I understand and agree about the "money" thing. But, think about this, what if we were still dealing with beads, tin cans, what ever. It would be the same thing, the problem is the "humans" and the greed , hate, fear and power. If you take a good look at us , we really aren't a very friendly species, to our selves or each other. Doesn't take too many to keep the "pot" stirred.
I completely agree, Doka. However, I think a lot of the over-the-top ridiculous corruption could be removed from our monetary system by simply allowing competing currencies to arise. Our particular monetary system - the fed, fractional reserve banking, etc., is incredibly corrupt. In fact it's criminal & it severely punishes wage earners & savers.
There is, in my opinion, another key component. Once any human organization grows beyond a certain size (as outlined in something known as a 'dunbar grouping'), be they nations or businesses or service clubs or whatever, they will nearly always be destroyed by corruption and dishonest behavior. This happens, again in my opinion, because true accountability among humans comes directly from the community. Insulate yourself from the community by obscuring yourself in the crowd or hiding behind a legal fiction and you become unaccountable. A failure in the human psyche causes unaccountability to lead to bad behavior in almost every case. I think the YouTube comment section proves my point.
We need greater numbers of smaller, more accountable organizations, across the spectrum, imho. We like competition, right?
If you're interested, here's a little more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
There is, in my opinion, another key component. Once any human organization grows beyond a certain size (as outlined in something known as a 'dunbar grouping'), be they nations or businesses or service clubs or whatever, they will nearly always be destroyed by corruption and dishonest behavior. This happens, again in my opinion, because true accountability among humans comes directly from the community. Insulate yourself from the community by obscuring yourself in the crowd or hiding behind a legal fiction and you become unaccountable. A failure in the human psyche causes unaccountability to lead to bad behavior in almost every case. I think the YouTube comment section proves my point.
We need greater numbers of smaller, more accountable organizations, across the spectrum, imho. We like competition, right?
If you're interested, here's a little more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.[2][3] Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.
Last edited by SquidInk on 02-21-2013 11:10 PM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.
