Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[crashcourse]

Im not saying deny care just saying government shouldn't have to pay for it all

I'll never forget my MIL breaking her hip and in the middle of that hospitalization some gyn idiot shows up wanting to do a papsmear on an 86 yo blind woman with a broken hip. Ct scan had showed them something "suspicious"

My wife was told by her primary care doctor she had MS based on a mri done for increasing headache frequently. Luckily I knew my own radiologist who came up with an entirely different interpretation--I was never so angry and relieved in my life going thru hell the weekend we didn't know--that was 5 years ago and shes fine

but there's a ;lot of places they could cut costs --unfortunately the greed of the corporate hospital system pressures a lot of these providers to "increase workload"

hope that wasn't too much spintl tap

adjusts wtf meter to 11

[entropy]

I looked at the numbers. The program he was talking about accounted for 11% of total mortgages. He still persists with this claim. And questions my intellectual honesty. Which goes back to the Kapuscinski quote about what interferes with a person's ability to reason.

Perhaps I'm incorrect as well, but of those 11% you reference, what is their risk profile? I'd also suggest behaviors at banks changed due to more than the 11%....?

I personally found it much easier to buy a home during that time than before and, but again, maybe there were other factors involved. It certainly felt to me like people where buying homes beyond their means..

[Hannibal]

Ryan would love to gut Social Security, medicare and medicaid.

It has to happen eventually. These are massively unsound programs with huge unfunded liabilities.

[entropy]

It has to happen eventually. These are massively unsound programs with huge unfunded liabilities.

f'ing baby boomers

[iam416]

Another major piece is the home interest tax deduction.

If you get rid of that I'll cut your throat!!!!!!!!! CUT YOUR THROAT!

At least for the next 10-15 years.

[AlabamAlum]

unfortunately the greed of the corporate hospital system pressures a lot of these providers to "increase workload"

Yes, thank the good lord for the altruistic physician standing strong in the face of the out-of-control irresistible greed of the hospital.

In fact, spending two decades recruiting physician groups to my medical center, I am here to tell you they were not in the least concerned with strengthening revenue. Nope! They only cared about healing the sick! No greed on their end.

<rolls eyes>

[Whitley]

Im not saying deny care just saying government shouldn't have to pay for it all

I'll never forget my MIL breaking her hip and in the middle of that hospitalization some gyn idiot shows up wanting to do a papsmear on an 86 yo blind woman with a broken hip. Ct scan had showed them something "suspicious"

My wife was told by her primary care doctor she had MS based on a mri done for increasing headache frequently. Luckily I knew my own radiologist who came up with an entirely different interpretation--I was never so angry and relieved in my life going thru hell the weekend we didn't know--that was 5 years ago and shes fine

but there's a ;lot of places they could cut costs --unfortunately the greed of the corporate hospital system pressures a lot of these providers to "increase workload"

hope that wasn't too much spintl tap

adjusts wtf meter to 11

Well the health care system was paid based on fee for service for decades. Now, the US health care system is starting to switch over to fee for outcomes. That will lower costs by taking out unnecessary things to bill for. Ultimately, that comes down to doctors putting down all the information and the people behind the scenes (medical coders and such) to figure out the medical necessary parts. It will be a process but one that was overdue in this country.

[AlabamAlum]

So-called value-based (or "outcome-based") reimbursement has a ton of issues. In the end, it will be the death of the local community hospital, and the large mega-centers will be all that remains.


I'm okay with that because I always aligned with Mega-Systems. Fuck the community hospital.

[hack]

Perhaps I'm incorrect as well, but of those 11% you reference, what is their risk profile? I'd also suggest behaviors at banks changed due to more than the 11%....?

I personally found it much easier to buy a home during that time than before and, but again, maybe there were other factors involved. It certainly felt to me like people where buying homes beyond their means..

Right. The question is why it was so easy to get a mortgage, or why agents sold people more house than they could afford, or why it was so easy to get a home-backed loan. The answer is not that government forced the banks to do anything. It was that Wall Street found a way to book the deals and get the fees and bonuses, but securitized the mortgages to avoid taking on the risks of default. It paid for legal and regulatory outcomes that allowed it to do these things. One side of the bank was selling these to clients as a good investment, and another side of the bank was shorting them once it was clear they were not good investments. They had their cake and ate it too.

I think there's a good argument about whether government should have dabbled on the margins in the way that it did, but ultimately it's just the margins. 11% of loans in the system. It's not an explanation for what happened.

[entropy]

Like anything there are pros and cons to both.. example in favor or against both.

I can think of a couple small community hospitals in Nebraska that need some help and I'm not talking financially. Just because you went to med school in the 1960's doesn't mean you're providing the best care today.

On the other hand, corporations can over standardize and are prone to creating one size fits all models.

[Hannibal]

It was that Wall Street found a way to book the deals and get the fees and bonuses, but securitized the mortgages to avoid taking on the risks of default.

Yup. And who ultimately ended buying into that risk? Why did they take that risk then but not before? Is it because greed was invented in the 1990s or is it because structures were put into place within our lifetimes that enabled the banks to do this? What mechanism was in place to make banks think that they could sell bundles of loans at values that did not reflect their risk?

And who bought up all of those securitized loans? Magical elves? Why didn't they perceive any risk to buying them? Selling an asset above what it's worth isn't necessarily easy to do. It's certainly not a sustainable business model. If this is happening routinely, then it isn't because of "greed". It is happening because there is an ineffeciency on the buyer end.

[entropy]

Right. The question is why it was so easy to get a mortgage, or why agents sold people more house than they could afford, or why it was so easy to get a home-backed loan. The answer is not that government forced the banks to do anything. It was that Wall Street found a way to book the deals and get the fees and bonuses, but securitized the mortgages to avoid taking on the risks of default. It paid for legal and regulatory outcomes that allowed it to do these things. One side of the bank was selling these to clients as a good investment, and another side of the bank was shorting them once it was clear they were not good investments. They had their cake and ate it too.

I think there's a good argument about whether government should have dabbled on the margins in the way that it did, but ultimately it's just the margins. 11% of loans in the system. It's not an explanation for what happened.

And who allowed Wall Street the ability to spread risk into non risky assets? Changes in the gov't rules... I still agree with Hanni on what caused the bubble. Again, open to be proven wrong.

[froot loops]

And who allowed Wall Street the ability to spread risk into non risky assets? Changes in the gov't rules... I still agree with Hanni on what caused the bubble. Again, open to be proven wrong.

What change in government rules made JP Morgan invent Credit Default Swaps? I've not heard of the law. It certainly wasn't the community reinvestment act.

[Hannibal]

f'ing baby boomers

Social Security and Medicare are massive ponzi schemes run by the government. The nature of a ponzi scheme is that somebody gets royally screwed when the music stops and there are no chairs left. Once it is in full swing, this is unavoidable. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to be that guy, but it really is going to have to happen eventually. There is no solution to the problem that avoids somebody getting completely fucked.

[crashcourse]

Now, the US health care system is starting to switch over to fee for outcomes.

that might not be a bad thing--providers nightbe a lot more selective on who they choose to do procedures on which is biggest moneymaker out there

AA when I say medical corporations I include those doctors in large practicing specialties whom are robbing the hospitals of services they use to share . like the regulate the practice of some of these specialists being able to evaluate diagnose procedure and treat everything in their own little building.

nothing better then evaluating biopsying diagnosing then treating that patient with that brand new radiation machine and point that patient into lets just keep everything right here in our little office

I still remember having the old family doc I could ride my bike over to and he stitched me up on more then once occasion and I think put a leg cast on for something.

health care needs more family doctors and less multiple referrals by that family doctor



bad thing is a second opinion could cost you out the ass