On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Judah wrote: >> Gruss, you don't seem to appreciate that where we are at today is a >> big fucking smoking crater. > > (1.) I do understand the crater, but I also understand that you don't > go fecking with an operational system when lives are at stake. That's > just common sense ... I thought.
It seems highly unlikely that any fecking with the current system through government intervention will result is a more fecked up scenario. To use a medical analogy, if the patient's vitals are stable, you wait and do some diagnostics before deciding on surgery. If the patient is hemorrhaging, you go in do the best you can, get them stable and then figure out where to go from there. > (2.) I only mentioned ICD-9 because Michael said that diagnosis wasn't > a menu and, in fact as demonstrated by ICD-9, it basically is. A diagnosis isn't a menu. ICD-9 just gives you a way of recording that diagnosis in a fashion that allows it to be compared with other people that provide the same diagnosis. The real diagnosis is in the chart notes and the plan of treatment is what amounts to the real healthcare being provided. And, in fact, the bulk of the physicians in the United States don't have EMR's and have their chart notes in a physical folder. The CPT codes are looked up for the purposes of billing, but the course of treatment settled on by the physician isn't related to an ICD-9 code. > (3.) You must've misunderstood everything I've been saying. I'm not > saying we don't need change and I'm not saying some type of government > architected system won't work. > I'll happily read the article you link to. I was first out pounding the pavement for a single payer health plan 17 years ago. Its a shame that the Clintions screwed that one up mightily. Think of where we might be today if the US economy didn't have this bloated dead corpse of a health care system dragging behind it. I assure you that I understand the insurance industry. You may not like the way that I see it but I assure you that I understand it quite well. Healthy skepticism is warranted and a fine idea going forward. Michael is still right though. There are a variety of health insurance systems within the US and world wide that provide useful models for US national reform. They aren't the US and each has its strengths and weaknesses. However, the similarities and applicability for them to our situation is greater than the differences. Judah > I'm saying I'm a skeptic with common sense which means I'm not going > to take your word for it when you don't understand the insurance > business model and think Micheal is "right" given his subject matter > expertise is limited to once having had a splinter removed in the UK. > > I understand you're passionate about it (me too!) and that's great - > the industry and America needs you. I just trying to be the voice of > reason by reminding you we need a very detailed and well thought out > approach. And saying "nationalize healthcare!" when you can't define > it and saying insurance has a "fundamental flaw" is not that. > > Read this: > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande > > It's written by practicing physician in Massachusetts and I basically > agree with him 100%. > > Great article. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:289032 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
