Why some people still don't want to wear mask?

[jobo]

Lets say you needed a knee replacement or wanted a face lift?

if you want a face lift irs private only, cosmetic sugary following an acident is available, knee surgury you can go private, no one is stopping you payibg if you want to, on the nhs, depends how bad you injury is, for sonethibg thats stoppibg you from walking, less than a month, certaibly no more than 6 weeks, if its just stoppibg you playing foot ball, a while longer, they have to sort out all the,serioys cases before irs yoyr turn

 

[JowGaWolf]

Another cogent reason I do not post links. What is the point when you already have your mind made up?

The person you are talking to may have made up their mind but there are other people who read the post who may be interested. For me, when I post links it's so other people can read for themselves. Seriously, I wouldn't waste time trying to get one person to see my point of view. But everything that we post here is public and other people read it. Other people may be interested.

I keep in mind that other people may read what we post so I try to be responsible as I can with certain subject matters. I rather that people have links to sources so they can read it for themselves. There been times where I've had discussions outside of Martial Talk and have supplied links from here.

I actually read the links that people post. Sometimes I misunderstand what people are trying to say and the link is the thing that clears it up for me.

 

[Bruce7]

Agree. There is already a great amount of lost data I am afraid. So much of the more common illness data has been wrapped up into the numbers. And let's not forget the financial advantage for hospitals to include C-19 in a diagnosis. I do not see how the numbers will ever be accurate.

I do not wish to disagree with you. Hospitals break even or lose money on C-19 cases. They can not do option surgery so hospitals are losing money. Your logic has gone out the window.

 

[EdwardA]

I do not wish to disagree with you. Hospitals break even or lose money on C-19 cases. They can not do option surgery so hospitals are losing money. Your logic has gone out the window.

In the US, every hospital gets $16,000 from the Federal Gov. for every Covid case they admtt.....over and above insurance, State and County funding. Whether or not it's severe. They could be admitted for a few hours, as long as they're diagnosed and admitted. They get the money.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The best I can do right now.
Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients

Thanks for the link. I really appreciate it. I'm reading it right after I post this .

 

[EdwardA]

Thanks for the link. I really appreciate it. I'm reading it right after I post this .

I heard 16k without the ventalator...from two separate sources last week. They could've been in error, or it's changed. The posted link story has no date...that's why I try and check several sources. I don't always have the time tho...

The hospitals are getting extra money for covid cases.

I'll say again, some these thing are harder to find on google, I regularly use three or four search engines.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The best I can do right now.
Fact check: Medicare pays hospitals more money for COVID-19 patients

Kind of typing my response as I'm reading the article. Just some thoughts passing. If I don't type it I'll forget. So halfway through the article it looks COVID-19 financial support was rushed for good reasons. The US has had 189,000 deaths due to COVID-19. We weren't ready. It was either pay or not pay to try to save people lives. Kind of the Catch 22. But anyway half way in the article was this.

"Ask FactCheck reporter Angelo Fichera, who interviewed Jensen, noted, "Jensen said he did not think that hospitals were intentionally misclassifying cases for financial reasons. But that’s how his comments have been widely interpreted and paraded on social media."

Ask FactCheck's conclusion: "Recent legislation pays hospitals higher Medicare rates for COVID-19 patients and treatment, but there is no evidence of fraudulent reporting."" I can understand why it would cost more money to treat COVID-19. It's a new virus with no standard treatment. Treating the systems the way that you would normally treat them was actually making things worse.

So the questions becomes, "How much does it cost to treat an unknown disease that became a Pandameic?" What is the price tag that you would put on the effort to try to stop a pandemic? Do you stop trying when you hit $50,000 for the patient. How much does it cost to treat a COVID-19 patient with no previous information to go on? I know doctors like money but I think many of them would prefer the glory of being the doctor that contributed to the cure.


So I continued reading and they state that hospitals do get paid more for Treating Covid-19. But it's not a conspiracy or bad business. To sum it up: It just cost More to Treat a person with COVID-19 than it does to treat someone without it. Below is what was also on the same page you showed.

"We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as COVID-19 and on ventilators as TRUE.

Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with COVID-19 or if it's considered presumed they have COVID-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat COVID-19 cases.

This higher allocation of funds has been made possible under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act through a Medicare 20% add-on to its regular payment for COVID-19 patients, as verified by USA TODAY through the American Hospital Association Special Bulletin on the topic."


I'm not sure how you read this, but what I read seems normal. COVID-19 is not the flu. Different measures must be taken in order to deal with COVID-19. There are different costs associated with COVID-19 that you don't have when treating things like the flu.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In the US, every hospital gets $16,000 from the Federal Gov. for every Covid case they admtt.....over and above insurance, State and County funding. Whether or not it's severe. They could be admitted for a few hours, as long as they're diagnosed and admitted. They get the money.

source please-- Nevermind I read your second post.

 

[Steve]

Another cogent reason I do not post links. What is the point when you already have your mind made up?

Come on. You're so disingenuous. I read the article and it either doesn't say what you think it says, or you agree with me that a "for profit" healthcare system is a very bad idea.

I think single-payer is an excellent idea. Serious question. Did you read the article you posted? Yes or no.

I expected blowback. Single payer system is analogous with socialism.

Definition of single payer healthcare:
Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare in which the costs of essential healthcare for all residents are covered by a single public system. Single-payer systems may contract for healthcare services from private organizations or may own and employ healthcare resources and personnel.

Paint a white horse grey and it is still a white horse. Do your homework.

I really don't understand what you're referring to by "blowback." I mean, you posted two things that seem incongruous, and you're saying good things as though they are bad things. A single payer system would be awesome for the country. Well, it would be awesome for the patients. it would be terrible for all of the money-grubbers who have their hands in the pot.

I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect health care system, but to fix the grift in our system and ensure everyone can get the care we need, we have to do at least 3 things: 1: Get profit out of the equation. It's immoral. 2: Control the outrageous costs and create a consistent payment schedule. At this point, the costs are hidden, are very arbitrary (and can vary wildly from facility to facility) and often patients have no choice where they get their care. 3: Related to the last is the illusion of choice. We have very few choices, and sometimes, even when we can exercise some choices, we are still screwed.

While single payer doesn't fix every problem within the medical system, it can fix every one of those things. It would eliminate the intentional confusion around billing. There would be no more "out of network" expenses. It would decouple healthcare from employment, freeing folks to take more entrepreneurial risk. It would save families from losing their retirement accounts and homes in order to pay for medical expenses. Everyone would be covered.

And all that said, I think America could come up with a great system. We have pretty much every other wealthy, industrialized nation in the world to look at for inspiration.

 

[Steve]

The person you are talking to may have made up their mind but there are other people who read the post who may be interested. For me, when I post links it's so other people can read for themselves. Seriously, I wouldn't waste time trying to get one person to see my point of view. But everything that we post here is public and other people read it. Other people may be interested.

I keep in mind that other people may read what we post so I try to be responsible as I can with certain subject matters. I rather that people have links to sources so they can read it for themselves. There been times where I've had discussions outside of Martial Talk and have supplied links from here.

I actually read the links that people post. Sometimes I misunderstand what people are trying to say and the link is the thing that clears it up for me.

For whatever record we're creating here, I'm pretty well convinced on the subject of health care, but that's after working with the system in different ways and doing a lot of research over 25 years. I'm not a zealot, but I'm pretty well educated on the subject, and my position is pretty well fixed at this point.

And, I read the article and will try to read anything anyone shares and give it some thought. In this case, dude posted a link that appears to contradict his stated position. I'm still confused by that.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I heard 16k without the ventalator...from two separate sources last week. They could've been in error, or it's changed. The posted link story has no date...that's why I try and check several sources. I don't always have the time tho...

The hospitals are getting extra money for covid cases.

I'll say again, some these thing are harder to find on google, I regularly use three or four search engines.

It's not hard for me to find things on the Internet, but I think that's because I spent 4 years doing internet research for weekly research papers that I was responsible for.

"COVID patients: hospitals get paid more, but it's complicated
Are hospitals paid more to care for coronavirus patients? (Aug.3, 2020)

"Yes, hospitals get an additional 20% for Medicare patients treated for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. But there's more to the story behind this temporary reimbursement."

"The higher Medicare rate stirred controversy in April after Republican Sen. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota doctor, speculated on Fox News that the additional money might inspire hospital administrators to make it look like routine pneumonia cases were COVID-19 cases."

"Months later, though, the higher payouts don’t appear to have been a windfall for hospitals.

The Ohio Hospital Association estimates its 240 members have lost about $3 billion since early March because of pandemic-related limits on nonessential surgeries and procedures, which can be as much as 40% of a hospital’s revenue.

The financial strain is exacerbated by the higher cost of caring for COVID patients, which is why Congress approved the higher Medicare rate as part of the $2 trillion CARES Act."

I try to say this as neutral as possible.
Someone in government who doesn't do the work the hospitals do and never even looked at the data or budgets. He an hypothetical statement in which Social Media jumped on as if it was true even though there were no proof in the statement that he made. Once they actually looked into it they discovered the opposite of the claim that was made. This confusion could have been prevented if it was actually looked into before making the statements or if Social Media could think things through. Or just ask a simple question. What are the costs associated with treating and diagnosing a COVID-19 patient? Then actually getting that information.

 

[EdwardA]

It's not hard for me to find things on the Internet, but I think that's because I spent 4 years doing internet research for weekly research papers that I was responsible for.

"COVID patients: hospitals get paid more, but it's complicated
Are hospitals paid more to care for coronavirus patients? (Aug.3, 2020)

"Yes, hospitals get an additional 20% for Medicare patients treated for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. But there's more to the story behind this temporary reimbursement."

"The higher Medicare rate stirred controversy in April after Republican Sen. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota doctor, speculated on Fox News that the additional money might inspire hospital administrators to make it look like routine pneumonia cases were COVID-19 cases."

"Months later, though, the higher payouts don’t appear to have been a windfall for hospitals.

The Ohio Hospital Association estimates its 240 members have lost about $3 billion since early March because of pandemic-related limits on nonessential surgeries and procedures, which can be as much as 40% of a hospital’s revenue.

The financial strain is exacerbated by the higher cost of caring for COVID patients, which is why Congress approved the higher Medicare rate as part of the $2 trillion CARES Act."

I try to say this as neutral as possible.
Someone in government who doesn't do the work the hospitals do and never even looked at the data or budgets. He an hypothetical statement in which Social Media jumped on as if it was true even though there were no proof in the statement that he made. Once they actually looked into it they discovered the opposite of the claim that was made. This confusion could have been prevented if it was actually looked into before making the statements or if Social Media could think things through. Or just ask a simple question. What are the costs associated with treating and diagnosing a COVID-19 patient? Then actually getting that information.

One or two stores are very short on data. It takes more effort, more reference articles. I bet you already know that...and fact-checking articles are notorious for publishing only parts of the details.

Sometimes it takes weeks of digging thru articals to get the whole story.

Further down in the article, the guy clarified is statement saying, doctors may not tend to game the system, but administrates might.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In this case, dude posted a link that appears to contradict his stated position. I'm still confused by that.

I thought the same thing when I read the article too. I also saw that it was first brought up on Fox News. If that's the case then we already know the spin that's going to be put on the comment that they were quoting. Fox News wasn't always like this. Back in the day with Geraldo and Hannity and Colmes, they were more reliable with the news. But these days it just sounds like one big talk show, Little news with a lot of opinions.

I stopped watching Fox when Colmes left. Holmes would fact check Hannity when Hannity said something incorrect. They never replaced him

I found this. "To get an idea of just how high, Cox analyzed medical claims from 18 million patients with insurance from their employer who were hospitalized in 2018 with pneumonia. Overall, costs ranged from just under $10,000 to just over $20,000" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/29/823438983/what-is-the-cost-of-covid-19-treatment

This is the cost of treating pneumonia, so $16,000 per patient is in the same ball part as Pneumonia. The biggest difference is that Pneumonia doesn't spread like Covid-19 and Covid-19 requires operational changes to be made in order to handle it.

 

[EdwardA]

I thought the same thing when I read the article too. I also saw that it was first brought up on Fox News. If that's the case then we already know the spin that's going to be put on the comment that they were quoting. Fox News wasn't always like this. Back in the day with Geraldo and Hannity and Colmes, they were more reliable with the news. But these days it just sounds like one big talk show, Little news with a lot of opinions.

I stopped watching Fox when Colmes left. Holmes would fact check Hannity when Hannity said something incorrect. They never replaced him

I found this. "To get an idea of just how high, Cox analyzed medical claims from 18 million patients with insurance from their employer who were hospitalized in 2018 with pneumonia. Overall, costs ranged from just under $10,000 to just over $20,000" source: https://www.npr.org/2020/03/29/823438983/what-is-the-cost-of-covid-19-treatment

This is the cost of treating pneumonia, so $16,000 per patient is in the same ball part as Pneumonia. The biggest difference is that Pneumonia doesn't spread like Covid-19 and Covid-19 requires operational changes to be made in order to handle it.

Everybody spins the news. Anybody that doesn't think so is not neutral. At least on Fox they'd do a subject and bring in a pundit from each side to debate the issue. I stopped watching them because then you'd have to listen to no more then both sides spinning issues. Spin comes from both sides an never includes all the data. That's why I study both sides...and then go well beyond that to dig out more.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sometimes it takes weeks of digging thru articals to get the whole story.

Further down in the article, the guy clarified is statement saying, doctors may not tend to game the system, but administrates might.

Administration in any organization runs the risk of being shady. It's not an hospital thing, it's an administration thing. I sure people say the same things about their own Jobs. I know I say it about mine. I complain with co-workers about certain things and the complaints are always about upper management's administrative decisions. I did the same thing when I worked in government.

People in the administrative department of an organization sometimes believes that they have to "cheat" in order to get things done. Most people on the front line know that there's no need to cheat. If you have an accurate understanding of your company then you should be able to make the necessary arguments you need for funding.

The fact that administrators may try to game a system is no secret. Look as US government and you'll see it. It is equally true "that employees may try to steal money from the company.". It doesn't mean that's what going on. It's a possibility that always exists. It's nothing new. If politicians are worried about money being missed used then you simply add necessary requirements, aka regulations, that hospitals must meet before they get the money. But there's a sector of U.S. government that doesn't like regulations. I

If they want less regulations then they shouldn't get made when people start gaming the system. But in that same article it sesm that they actually looked at the budgets of multiple hospitals and discovered that the hospitals that they checked weren't doing what the government offical stated that they might do.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Everybody spins the news. Anybody that doesn't think so is not neutral.

That's why I like news organizations that list their sources. When they list the source you can find it directly from the person or organizations that they are quoting.
By default I don't read too many websites that don't have links to sources. For me I usually get curious beyond the article. Articles are just summaries so if you want to know more then it's just best to go to the original source. It's easier to do that when the website lists their refrences. Sort of like how Wikipedia does.

I often use Wikipedia to help me find sources on what I'm looking for. I almost always over look what is posted on wikipedia and go straight to the source section.

 

[EdwardA]

That's why I like news organizations that list their sources. When they list the source you can find it directly from the person or organizations that they are quoting.
By default I don't read too many websites that don't have links to sources. For me I usually get curious beyond the article. Articles are just summaries so if you want to know more then it's just best to go to the original source. It's easier to do that when the website lists their refrences. Sort of like how Wikipedia does.

I often use Wikipedia to help me find sources on what I'm looking for. I almost always over look what is posted on wikipedia and go straight to the source section.

You seem to have plenty of ability...and willingness to spend time at it. Remember tho that Wikipedia is written by 1000s of volunteer editors. I've found issues on their site too. That's why I use several search engines.

Regarding your other post, smart regulation would be nice, but nearly all legislation is infuenced by lobbyests...and back-room dealing...and there's no such thing as a clean bill. No matter who does it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

At least on Fox they'd do a subject and bring in a pundit from each side to debate the issue.

I'm pretty sure other news organizations of people form opposing sides on, to speak on the network. I don't think that's just a Fox Thing. I know on MSNBC Micheal Steel often comes on the show to give his insight. He's the former Chairman of the RNC.

 

[Steve]

There are people hosting shows solo on MSNBC who worked on republican presidential campaigns in senior positions.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You seem to have plenty of ability...and willingness to spend time at it. Remember tho that Wikipedia is written by 1000s of volunteer editors. I've found issues on their site too. That's why I use several search engines.

That's why I go look for the sources. I'm not sure how you are searching on google. but what saves me time is to type what I'm looking for and then type a reputable organization. So if I'm looking for something about Covi-19, I type the institutions with some credibility. This usually leads me to secondary organizations who had source links in their article that go directly to the information that I'm looking for.

Regarding your other post, smart regulation would be nice, but nearly all legislation is infuenced by lobbyests...and back-room dealing...and there's no such thing as a clean bill. No matter who does it.

I agree with that. I'm not a fan of lobbyist. They often drown out the concerns of citizen and try to have influence with the government so that it benefits them. Some issues I can see a need for them to have some input, but that input should be limited. It shouldn't be a "24 hour a day push" to get things to bend their way as a business.

I don't work in that field but my idea would be 20% push for business needs and 80% push for citizens who are also my customers. The better off my customer is the more money my customer will be able to spend. I've owned a few businesses in the past and it's always the same for me. I want people to have jobs and make enough money so that they can buy more of the things they want. My customers are just like me. When I have more money I'm able to save more money and buy more things. When I make more money, I don't spend less. I spend less when I don't have money and I'm not able to save anything because the money that I do have goes to expenses.

Rich people follow the same pattern. When they make more money they buy more things and can save more money. So for me, a broke customer is bad for business.