Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Nov 2006 07:50 In article <C18344BC.4D3DA%dbowey(a)comcast.net>, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 11/17/06 10:30 AM, in article a1751$455dffd6$4fe7457$4012(a)DIALUPUSA.NET, >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> Don Bowey wrote: >> >>> On 11/17/06 2:00 AM, in article susql21c3s3edj687bkq220q8alrlm7ns9(a)4ax.com, >>> "Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>> In my area here, most dentists (well, that situation _is_ changing as >>>> some dentists opt for Kaiser or large corporate service providers like >>>> Willamette Dental, for example) are in private practice. While some >>>> of them can and do make a whole lot of money (I overheard the CPA of >>>> one saying he'd made 4.5 million 'the last year') and may have a staff >>>> of some modest size, the insurance companies are a lot bigger and a >>>> lot more profitable -- we're talking billions of real dollars and not >>>> mere nickels, by comparison. I have no fear at all that insurance >>>> companies are "behind the dentist 8-ball" on any score at all. It's a >>>> game, if both sides play it as hard as I'm sure they do, that the >>>> insurance companies are way out ahead in winning. >>>> >>>> However, there is a 3rd party, which is the consuming public. With >>>> the really big boys playing (insurance companies) against the somewhat >>>> smaller boys (the dentists in private practice and the dental >>>> associations), the really insignificant ants that are getting stomped >>>> on are the rest of us who are dust by comparison and are only needed >>>> at all as justification for the cash flows the other two are fighting >>>> over. >>>> >>>> We lose. >>>> >>>> The way we do medical and dental insurance in the US is an unmitigated >>>> disaster and it is sucking the strength of this country dry for the >>>> profits of a few. We are bent over and on our knees already under the >>>> weight of it. The system is going to topple of its own weight because >>>> the rest of us just can't carry the burden much longer. >>> >>> >>> The government sure isn't helping anyone. >>> >>> Unfortunately, Prez. Bush's screw-the-people organization got the age >>> discrimination laws changed so they could, indeed, discriminate against >>> older people. Having done that, they permitted businesses the renege on >>> their medical care coverage obligations to their retired people, forcing >>> retirees onto Medicare. So now, medical care that was a business financial >>> responsibility, is now a burden on the Public. The medical benefit was >>> *not* a gift to it's retirees, as some would have everyone believe, but was >>> bargained for in lieu of higher wages. It was a LEGAL obligation to the >>> people who had been in their employ. Many businesses under-funded their >>> pension and benefit plans, so they certainly supported the law change. >>> Other businesses responsibly did fully fund their obligation, and Bush made >>> it possible for them to pocket the funds. Guess which way They swung. >>> >> >> Anyone who bargains away curent wages in exchange for >> unenforcable (read "not in their control") promises >> of future services was a fool from the moment they >> hired on in such conditions. >> >> Don't blame Bush for this one. It was easily predictable >> and *had* to happen. > >Why did it have to happen? > >The plans should have been properly funded by business. They were. Then people looked at all that lovely money sitting around waiting for acquisition. This started happening in the 1990s. Then Congress passed a law that OKed buying insurance in lieu of keeping a money pool. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Nov 2006 07:52 In article <455E866A.1B7C9029(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Don Bowey wrote: >> > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> >>Don't blame Bush for this one. It was easily predictable >> >>and *had* to happen. >> > >> > >> > Why did it have to happen? >> >> Because when there's money available to be grabbed, it will >> be grabbed. > >That will happen in a money-grabbing society for sure ! > >The wholesale corruption of the USA never fails to amaze me. There are a few British businesses who bought US companies and skimmed the cash out. The corruption is not a US invention. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Nov 2006 08:02 In article <dgsql2pn6ovl7o7fb7eo5rsq1rucdi41q8(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Thu, 16 Nov 06 14:30:51 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>In article <iocnl293km621af8f379hohrquv2ktr25v(a)4ax.com>, >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 18:11:30 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Jonathan Kirwan angrily proclaims: >>>> >>>>snip >>>> >>>>> The specific case should not have happened. Imperfect as humans may >>>>> be admitted as being, this particular case is a simple failure that >>>>> didn't even have to happen and wouldn't have, in other existing >>>>> systems in place and operating already, today. >>>> >>>>> Excusing the specifics by moving to a useless extreme that applies to >>>>> anything and says nothing doesn't help us progress at all. >>>> >>>>Fact remains we'll never achieve zero defects. >>>> >>>>As I said before, I empathize. The reality is terrible >>>>things can happen to any of us. In your case it was >>>>a close call, too close for comfort. There was, fortunately, >>>>enough of a failsafe system in place to overcome stupidity, >>>>which has no cure. >>>> >>>>Try talking to Lucas, Eeyore, and Wake about whether >>>>or not the woman denying service to your brother should >>>>have been in that position. Their Marxist socialist >>>>humanism would have given her the opportunity to hold >>>>down that job and given her raises because human beings >>>>should be paid "a living wage." >>>> >>>>The reasons we'll never achieve zero defects regardless >>>>of whatever system is in place are obvious. You're not >>>>going to be able to replace the people who run >>>>services with anything that functions better. So long >>>>as you depend on people, mistakes will be made. >>>> >>>>See also Murphy's Law. >>> >>>But you are simply talking about a strawman argument that no one is >>>talking about. You've moved from a real case that should not take >>>place to a discussion about zero defects in an entire medical care >>>system. No one said we need to achieve zero defects overall. >>> >>>However, this defect should not happen because it is so easily avoided >>>and actually is, elsewhere. >>> >>>Some things you cannot do anything about. This one can be fixed. >> >>You haven't analyzied this situation properly. Take a good look >>at why that computer terminal is there and has to have each >>emergency patient's data entered and study all the signatures >>or OKs required to pass that physical point in each hospital. >> >>It has to do with information flow and capture. With out that >>data entry, no medical usage can be recorded. > >I've no idea what you are getting at, though. I can guess a bit, but >I'd rather not. Spell it out for me, if you would. I'll try. The only way a bandage can be charged back to the patient's account is to have a case number (or ID) assigned. That cannot happen until the data necessary to open an "account" is entered. The way to ensure that the chaos of an ER cannot interfere with this mundane data capture is to have the data entry as a gate that has to be passed before treatment. Now a good TTY operator can "remember" what wasn't done and catch up after the mess is dealt with. With cost cutting or new hires or shift changes, the tasks put off until later can easily not be done. All a data enterer needs is one reproof or warning and s/he will become obdurate about getting all the data entered before any treatment is allowed. If one of the pieces of data is insurance company and the code will not allow any more data entry until that field is filled, any ER care will be postponed until it's filled. If a nurse is filling in for the usual data entry worker, s/he will not know how to fool the code to get past the block. Code is very stupid and if it is written to not advance to the next question, it will not. > Meantime, I'm >staying with my point until you do a better job of explaining >yourself. > >By the way, I just spoke with a friend of mine for about an hour >tonight about US medical and dental care systems. He is a practicing >doctor. He and I seem to agree both generally and in specific, so I'm >thinking I understand myself and am able to communicate with at least >one other doctor about this without difficulty in understanding. So >perhaps our difficulty is more about you either not trying hard enough >to understand what I wrote about or you not trying hard enough to say >what you mean. I'm trying to write clearly. I'm currently flu'ed down and everything in my head is mush. I have not been able to figure out how you think so I can't form my writing to communciate easily. > >Be more pointed, if you would. I'm trying without getting into specific examples. The last thing I want is mess dumped in my lap and this is a public forum. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Nov 2006 08:11 In article <c09dd$455dd9a2$4fe7798$2513(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> In article <ejhtii$kd6$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >>>In article <ejf0n4$8ss_001(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>>In article <eje1on$am6$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <ejck7c$8qk_001(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >>>[.....] >>> >>>>>Who are the "these people" in the above. It is obvious it is not the >>>>>person I refered to. >>>> >>>>I was talking about the ones who work in stores in my area. >>> >>>Ok, so it is a different person. They guy I was refering to did >>>"security" work. He wore the nice uniform and walked around in the >>>parking lot. His whole purpose was to fool the neighborhood kids into >>>thinking we actually had security. >>> >>>He also kept track of how full the dumpsters were. They were "empty", >>>"full", "full full" or "full full full". >> >> >> Right. A person who thinks that way needs a 1::1 input::reaction >> type of training. A person who thinks like this cannot make >> shortcuts the way we do in assessing a situation and figuring >> out what needs to be done. If you give people who think like >> this work that has a simple "if x, then y" constraint, they >> will do that work very, very well. Anybody else will take >> shortcuts and do the work sloppily. >> >> >>>[....] >>> >>>>>You are talking of a different person than the one I was using in my >>>>>example. The one in my example would not have been likely to be able to >>>>>do anything like that. Some people with low IQs are gifted but not all of >>>>>them. >>>> >>>>The people who work in our grocery stores do not seem to be >>>>particularly gifted. But they do know about money. >>> >>>Those people are Einsteins compared to the sort I was refering. >> >> >> You underestimate them. These people buy things. They also >> are quite aware about x costing more than y. > >They made the news. Over the past few days they were standing >in line waiting at store doors for the release of the latest >Sony game platform. Other than making sure they had enough >money for the purchase, I don't think they have any grasp >of value. Betcha if you asked them how many had health >insurance..... That may be too abstract. Instead you ask them about their doctor and they will give you a life story. From that story you can figure out how those bills get paid. But you have to be patient because every conversation with people who think that way is given with every detail. And I mean *every* detail. One told me *exactly* how to clean one shelf. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Nov 2006 08:13
In article <455E76B9.5AF675F0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> > You underestimate them. These people buy things. They also >> > are quite aware about x costing more than y. >> >> They made the news. Over the past few days they were standing >> in line waiting at store doors for the release of the latest >> Sony game platform. Other than making sure they had enough >> money for the purchase, I don't think they have any grasp >> of value. Betcha if you asked them how many had health >> insurance..... > >A Play Station probably costs about the same as one month's health insurance. > >One is within their means, the other isn't. You aren't giving them any credit. Think about the fact that they know about these games; they know about new gear; they know when and how to get it; they also know how much money they will need and they acquire that money. That's pretty good. Most people who can "think well" ask their parents for the money or put it on a credit card and don't bother thinking about money. /BAH |