Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Does the same skepticism apply to the finding that Club cited?

Sure. Just not sure how to measure it. ("Count all the dogs that don't bark tonight.")

But I wouldn't trade an American teenager's life for an Iraqi school, so I don't see the driving need to be "even-handed" on that coverage.

Would you trade an American teenager's life for ten thousand Iraqi lives?

I would. And, given Saddam's record, I think that's what we did.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Would you trade an American teenager's life for ten thousand Iraqi lives?

I would. And, given Saddam's record, I think that's what we did.

I might. I wish the question had been posed that way beforehand.

But do you think Saddam was poised to kill 15 million (and counting) Iraqis?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
I wonder if there might be a valid legal argument that, when you're carried into an E-room for E-care, and you truly can't drive to the "approved" facility, the charges, no matter how high (as long as they are the facility's usual charges) are per se "reasonable" and thus fully payable by your insurer.

That may be in standard contracts. Hell if I know. And some indemnity policies don't have "approved" facilities -- you go where you go, and they pay what they pay, and you have to make up the difference. I'm not sure that even "participating" facilities in PPOs necessarily won't charge you more than what the insurer/plan deems reasonable and reimburses, but I could be wrong on that.

In any event, even for non-emergency care, if you read the actual articles, most of the facilities contacted weren't able/willing to provide cost estimates even after the fact, and prices negotiated with particular insurers/administrators are even more unlikely to be disclosed.

If one of the effects of HSAs etc. is to make prices for healthcare more transparent, I wonder whether prices for the insured will go up b/c the hospitals have a hard time justifying charging so much more to uninsured people (who, the hospitals note, often never pay b/c they go into bankruptcy, which brings us back to the bankruptcy issue . . .).

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I've already suggested that I think our invasion of Iraq has had an effect on Lebanon. It's just not the effect that you seem to be advocating. And it's not the January election there, it's our willingness to use force to remove a leader we don't like and the presence of our troops on Syria's eastern border.

It's all of these things. Removing the leader without instituting the vote would not have been as effective. "Happy talk" without military action would not have been as effective.

I think it takes a naif to think that sporadic happy talk from Bush about the importance of freedom and democracy has had much of anything to do with developments in Afghanistan, Ukraine, or Israel & Palestine. Egypt I'll grant you, but I'm not convinced that it means anything -- I think Mubarak is betting that he can make a couple cosmetic changes and our attention will move on to something else. We'll see. An election in which the largest opposition party is not permitted to run is not much of an election.

And I think it takes someone so blinded by partisanship that he can't see the light right in front of him. Please tell me, why didn't we see all of these things under prior adiminstrations? Or, much like the fall of communism, is this some sort of cosmic coincidence bearing no relationship to stated goals of policy?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
. I'm not sure that even "participating" facilities in PPOs necessarily won't charge you more than what the insurer/plan deems reasonable and reimburses, but I could be wrong on that.

Based solely on my limited experience with two PPOs, they do send me a wonderful explanation of benefits telling me what the outrageous charge was, what the negotiated (and far more reasonable) charge was, what I don't have to pay/they saved me, and what I do have to pay (deductible and/or copay). So, I conclude that with any PPO, a participating provider charges only what's reasonable and reimburses, at least net.

It also has taught me if you go outside the PPO, they stick it up your ass real hard, because they give you the high rate, regardless of whether they would otherwise negotiate with someone else.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I might. I wish the question had been posed that way beforehand.

But do you think Saddam was poised to kill 15 million (and counting) Iraqis?

But he gassed his own people!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Based solely on my limited experience with . . .

This is a beautiful phrase. So helpful. Makes his post non-preachy and non-irritating. Non-inflammatory.

I think I got some non-covered tests from my in-network PPO doctor, who was careful to tell me that they might not be covered, but she's quite meticulous. I unfortunately do not have the bill with me right now, or I would check. I think that while a copay applies to certain services, for other services I have to satisfy a deductible before the plan pays part of the costs.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But do you think Saddam was poised to kill 15 million (and counting) Iraqis?

If you looked to his future reign absent us, and extrapolate what he'd done so far, yeah, I think that would be a reasonable assumption.

[Replaced_Texan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/ma.../13HEALTH.html

Interesting article on trying to increase/measure quality in healthcare.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's all of these things. Removing the leader without instituting the vote would not have been as effective. "Happy talk" without military action would not have been as effective.

But the military action was not deployed in the support of democracy, in the sense that what prompted us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was a variety of other facts relating mostly to military threats against us. On the day that we invade a country that doesn't pose a threat to us simply to help a local movement for democracy, I'll buy that there's been a major shift in the orientation of our foreign policy. If we put real teeth behind our happy talk, you would see some results.

And I think it takes someone so blinded by partisanship that he can't see the light right in front of him. Please tell me, why didn't we see all of these things under prior adiminstrations? Or, much like the fall of communism, is this some sort of cosmic coincidence bearing no relationship to stated goals of policy?

In Afghanistan, we may no progress with the Taliban because our policy there was subordinated to our policy re Pakistan, which was more concerned with things like nuclear war with India. It took 9/11 to re-order those priorities.

In Ukraine, you had a repressive post-Soviet regime over which we had little influence.

In Israel and Palestine, you had tremendous movement towards peace leading up the end of Clinton's second terms. Things then fell apart. A lot of people have written a lot of words about why that happened. You might choose to believe that Arafat was responsible, and that Arafat's death was necessary to see the current progress, and there's something to it. But it's not like Bush's speeches killed Arafat.

Meanwhile, during the Clinton years it's not like our foreign policy ignored these sorts of issues. Most conservatives thought that Clinton spent too much time worrying about nation building, not too little. Recall our involvement in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia, and our role in the bail-outs of Mexico and Thailand.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you looked to his future reign absent us, and extrapolate what he'd done so far, yeah, I think that would be a reasonable assumption.

In a country of 22 million, that would be quite the accomplishment.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
In a country of 22 million, that would be quite the accomplishment.

(Sigh.) Not just next year.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by bilmore
(Sigh.) Not just next year.

If there are only 22 million people, even with a pretty high birthrate, and even given 10 years or so, that's a significant proportion of the population.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
If you looked to his future reign absent us, and extrapolate what he'd done so far, yeah, I think that would be a reasonable assumption.

If you extrapolate only from the period of time when we (a) weren't (a) supporting him, or (b) militarily containing him, you get a much lower death toll. E.g., his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds occurred in the late 1980s, not long after Rumsfeld went to Baghdad to give support to Iraq in its war with Iran, which we were more concerned about at the time.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If there are only 22 million people, even with a pretty high birthrate, and even given 10 years or so, that's a significant proportion of the population.

But he gassed his own people!