
Dahobbs
-
Posts
17864 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by Dahobbs
-
-
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:
You cannot write off unpaid medical accounts receivable on your taxes. You don’t want to keep it on your books because AR that is > 180 days is basically uncollectible so if you are trying to get a loan for your practice or facility or FMF to sell all or part you want to get it off the books, but it is a complete loss
If you could write off the Medicare allowable for a given code, we could probably take care of the uninsured problem without making many other changes.
Thanks makes sense. As I said, I don't know the mechanics of it, just how it is recorded in the system. I also realize that the systems I have seen generally relate to non-profit hospitals, so there may be a distinction there. I do know that hospitals receive certain tax incentives not available to physicians.
-
7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:
Write off in what sense
As a loss, presumably for taxes purposes. I just know that is how hospitals document it in their accounting systems. Actually, often times the services are listed as charity/write off. I don't know how they report that to the IRS or what value they actually report.
-
1 hour ago, DonkeyCigars said:
While I obviously agree with you that I bring honest opinions (that are my own, not my employer, etc. boilerplate/safe harbor legal disclaimer), I disagree that CR doesn't have a fair share of people who still automatically dismiss and make impossible to discuss, with the cheap and lazy "you are a troll" riposte because they can't handle the opinion and/or think it's impossible someone earnestly holds the opinion. I have my anti-fanbase who neg rep everything I post, regardless of content, and go back in time to do so. Not sure what the ultimate goal is and I generally ignore it, but I think it paints a picture of an attempt to silence and remove.
I think Anastasis said it best when he said it seems like a lot of us live in different worlds with respect to our experiences and ideas and interactions in real life and when bringing them to bear on the messageboard, it seems like something is missing.
Your posting and reaction history is available to everyone. Since the beginning of may, you have roughly 225 posts, mostly in the Cloak Room. You actually have net imaginary reputation points in the cloak room over that time (and just a handful of negs). Some people have been mean to you for some of your posts, but you aren't being run out because you have a different opinion. However, sometimes your opinion sucks, and people let you know that. You've done the same. Seems fair to me.
-
4
-
-
20 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:
Oh I’m not vain. I’m one fo the more stupid posters here. That’s why I listen to the smart people rather than pretend I’m the expert. Try it sometime
He's probably confusing us. I'm the vain one.
-
15 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:
I am biased as a someone who has worked in medical devices and pharma, but my rankings for who is most to blame for price gouging starts with hospitals and their networks and whoever is next is a distant second. They make up bullshit amounts and have their billing people harass customers (errrr patients) and their insurance providers for weeks, months, or years. Often unknowing patients will just pay the bill without questioning. Double billing is often going on as well. They are trying to push physicians to all become employees, and/or doctor gets their fee, nurse and anesthesia staff/overhead has a cost, they nickel and dime negotiate their vendors on device, drug, and supply prices, then they catch all of the profit.
As insurance reimbursements have gone down, hospitals don’t want to eat the profit loss so they turn the screws on what they will pay for things like implanted devices. 10 years ago you might have got a choice of state-of-the-art knee implants or pacemakers. Now you might get stuck with whatever the pencil pushers could get the cheapest on contract.
I fully support any legislation that forces pricing transparency by all facilities that accept Medicare and private insurance to demonstrate if every patient is paying the same and receiving the best care for that cost.
*Looks at HCA*
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, lmao said:
So this all because we don't want to see it as win (it isn't) for Trump? I despise the guy as much as anyone else but this is dumb.
What this are you referring to?
-
16 minutes ago, slorch said:
My position is that there was absolutely political pressure to avoid further investigation.
The politicization of the whole ordeal is bullshit. How the fuck do we pick sides on something that affects eveyone? Welp…we found a way to do it in spades.
Your position is bullshit. No one has any issue with investigating the origin of the virus. I mean, fuck, Biden has literally said we should investigate the lab origin hypothesis. The WHO has said we need to further investigate the lab origin hypothesis. Faucci has said we need to further investigate the lab origin hypothesis. And we've been investigating, but unfortunately were hampered by our limited access to China, particularly in the early days of the contagion because somebody decided that we didn't need boots on the ground or to participate in health research that didn't directly benefit him. Where we have an issue is when an investigation is dedicated to finding a pre-determined conclusion as opposed to the truth. And that's why one probe in one department of the government was shut down.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Both Tacos said:5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:Is my sperm human and alive?
Not trying to debate about abortion/human life, just the fact that people want to be protected from the government in interfering with their body but don't have a problem when it fits their agenda. Sometimes having freedoms, such as being able to have abortions may have other consequential rights.
The simple distinction to your dumb comparison is that we require people to get vaccines not for their own safety, but for the safety of others. And generally those requirements aren't blanket, but rather only apply if the person wants to participate in certain aspects of public life (e.g., public schooling). In a very real sense it is negligence to not get vaccinated if able because you are exposing others to risk. Abortion has a limited set of consequences that can't propagate to others in society.
Government interferes in our lives in a lot of ways. We have many laws that dictate what we can and cannot do. The primary limitation on government's authority is found in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the various states (technically, the first is supposed to dictate the extent of powers as opposed to establishing limits, but that isn't the practical reality). Here, a women's right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term has been well established as protected by the Constitution. No such protection has been extended to the right to endanger others by not getting vaccine. In fact, the existence of such a right has been roundly rejected.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, JohnLocke said:
A good simple reform would be to not allow hospitals to charge more than 25% more to anyone of their average insurance rate.
Neither insurance companies nor hospitals would like that reform because the negotiated rates are somewhat secret. They don't want the competition to know what they are paying/being paid. But it isn't a bad idea, but probably more difficult to implement in practice than you'd think.
-
2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:
Yep. And therein is the rub for me. If you’d take 10k to driver our baby from literally everyone with insurance why you got to send me a 39k bill in the hopes that I won’t have insurance?
I don't believe that's why they do it that way. Again, 99% of the time, they'll just negotiate with you and offer roughly what insurance is paying. And you can usually do that up front. The billed number is really just a negotiating thing with insurance companies. But they can't represent that is the billed rate unless, you know, it actually appears on the bills.
Also, keep in mind, providers will write off services that they don't get paid for (e.g., uninsured patients during ER visits). The billed rate may come into play there as well. . .
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:
This plus it puts pressure on the insurance companies to negotiate reasonable in network rates, or they are looking at paying a percentage of the billed charges. Texas now has a no surprise medical bill law, so the carrier and provider have to fight it out if it’s an out of network facility. The patient doesn’t have to get involved
Also, most out of network facilities aren't really out of network. There is still a contract, it is just less favorable for the insurance company (and the provider depending on your perspective). The limitation on balance billing during emergencies or when the patient doesn't have a choice in providers seems like good law, but I haven't seen how it operates in practice (and it only helps a small percentage of Texans with state regulated plans).
-
On 5/26/2021 at 5:45 PM, clapclapclap said:
I'm shocked that the wizened wisdom of your 30-year-old grad student County Judge doesn't have the wheels of gov't running smoothly....
County judge would have literally nothing at all to do with this.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, conVINCEd said:
So why have such a rate? My dad spent a month in the ICU after having quintuple bypass surgery some time ago. I was helping mom sort through the bills and it was really stressing her out. I told her that they have really good insurance, it will be fine. Showed her the maximum out of pocket provision in their health care plan. Still stressed her out at a time when there was already enough stress in her life.
That's a really good question. Hospitals tend to treat their charge masters as highly secretive. I suppose it is mainly for negotiation with insurance companies, but the billed rates may occasionally come into play when a third party has liability for injury to an uninsured and judgment proof ER patient.
-
2
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:
Medicare reimburses based on DRG. DRG for tibia fracture with major comorbidity or complication will pay 10k or so. Doesn’t matter what the bill is
Yeah, the billed rate is an imaginary number that no one pays. Either the person has medicare, which pays set rates for everything, or the person has private insurance, which generally contracts with providers for a percentage (or multiple rather) of medicare, or the person has no insurance and can generally get a cash rate closer to a typical insurance contract rate.
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, GRHorn said:
Sounds good.
-
1
-
-
Well this is sad. I actually thought the thread got on track and was focused on news for a hot minute. Sad to see that it was the OP @Cheeseweasel who couldn't stop himself from making it political again.
-
2 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:
... and being open to other ideas that go against what you may have believed to be true
Yes? And? Your point? Isn't that what I said?
-
1 hour ago, TexasPride10 said:
I think you're completely missing my point. I'm not "assuming Trump would automatically push back on whatever Fauci's advice was". I'm saying we know Fauci started off by telling everyone not to wear masks. That's a verifiable fact. I am adding the hypothetical situation of Trump telling everyone to wear masks at that time, because everyone that blames Trump for the 600k dead has said that he should have pushed masks from the beginning. So my point is; had Trump pushed masks from the beginning, he would have been going against what Fauci was saying, and most people would have told him to fuck off with his mask mandates. Everyone that was already convinced he wanted to be a dictator would have had a field day with him trying to force everyone to wear face masks while Dr. Fauci was telling us we didn't need to. Thus proving my point that no matter who was in charge at the very beginning of this whole thing; it was never going to go well in America because of how passionate we all are about who we want to listen to.
The funny thing is; none of my posts on this topic have been controversial. I've never dogged the left or the right. I've just stated that the polarization of this country was always going to prevent us from handling this pandemic as well as some other countries. The fact that I've gotten pushback on that idea is actually doing nothing but further proving my point.
This is so disingenuous, but I'm going to continue to engage anyway. If Trump issued a mask mandate in March when absolutely no masks were available, then I wouldn't have complied because it would have been impossible. If Trump had used his powers to ensure adequate supplies of masks early on, (1) Faucci would have had no reason to tell the public not to wear them, and (2) I would have definitely worn them. I didn't fucking leave my house from basically March 15 to the end of May 2020 anyway. Why on earth would you assume that myself and others similarly situation would have had an issue with wearing masks? Literally you're creating a hypothetical, and a hypothetical response to that hypothetical, that completely ignores what actually happened.
Here is where you are getting confused. You think that because people like yourself see the world only through the lens of Democrat policies, bad, Republican policies, good, that everyone else sees the world the same. It just isn't the case. As an example, Trump did a few decent things, for instance picking a very good administrator for NASA. If Trump had been a competent leader during this crisis, I would have given him credit. I wouldn't have liked him. But I would have given him credit. But that didn't happen because not only did he fail at being a competent leader, he actively interfered with others who were trying to help.
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:
Not arguing one way or the other, but blame goes all around... how long was Fauci pushing ventilator use and supply issue? There were many unknowns and "bad" science going around from all sides.
Ventilators were seen as important by doctors and scientists when we knew little about how to treat the disease. We realized later that we were better in most instances not using ventilators. That's called adapting to new information.
-
32 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:
And thru all this, Faucci didn’t think it was prudent to wear a mask at that same time?
What does Faucci have to do with anything in my statement? We had 50K dead in the United States and Trump still insisted it was a hoax and would just disappear. Trump was not open to change his position no matter what information he was provided. China could have told him this was the worse disease in the history of time, and he still would have said it was no big deal and the US had it under control.
Yes, Faucci was wrong on masks. I've already explained there were two reasons for his statement:
(1) The science showed masks did little to protect the wearer. That is still true. His statement was true in that from a personal protection standpoint, standard non-n95 masks were of little value. The science on them reducing transmission to others existed, but was fairly limited and needed replication. As it became clearer that masks when worn by everybody would help limit the spread, the CDC changed its guidance as did Dr. Faucci.
(2) Our supplies of PPE was extremely limited, with not even medical professionals having adequate access. At the time he made his statement, people were starting to hoard the more critical n-95 masks that were needed by the medical professionals. Giving our access to equipment at the time, prioritizing masks for medical professionals was clearly the correct choice. He should have communicated that message better and not mislead by suggesting that masks served no purpose.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, fattyflattie said:
I found that example more preposterous than the GM example, if we’re being honest.
Lol. You’d rather blame Trump for his portion than the source, that thru negligence at best, and malicious intent at worst, have killed millions across the entire planet. Maybe Trump would have taken it serious had China reported more than 14 deaths?
Just so we are clear, the example was to illustrate the general principle that not every person in the country should be held responsible for the actions of the few. I wasn't attempting to compare the scope of the damage. If the Chinese government was responsible for the release, punish it accordingly. If private Chinese companies or persons were responsible, let's do what we can to hold them responsible AND work to make sure safety standards are implemented and followed in China and worldwide.
Also your bit on Trump is nonsense. Trump knew China shutdown cities filled with millions of people in fucking January. His administration was told many times by our agencies the seriousness of the situation. It didn't matter what anyone told him about the scale of the problem, he didn't want it affecting his ratings. Just accept that.
-
2 hours ago, 52-80 said:
We don't need to propose anything. It's the government's job to figure out the solution. We just needed to have opened the lines to interrogating the possibility that the Chinese were involved in origination of the outbreak, and we shouldn't squashed that suspicion just because it'll hurt your feelings.
It is open. We are investigating. A redundant and poorly run operation was shuttered. That's it.
-
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:
No. I don't think that we should be nuking anyone.
But I think that we should recognize threats in context and treat rogue states with a measure of equivalent balance.
And China is a rogue state.
Ok?
-
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:
Which of the following is more likely in the near term, say 5-10 years, in your opinion?
North Korea detonates worldwide nukes?
Iran figures outs how to rub two atoms together and irradiates some people?
We have the third cov related pandemic to emerge from China?
We treat these geopolitical situations very differently, dismissing objective reality.
Ummm... what? So you do think we should nuke China? I honestly have no idea what point you're attempting to make. Frankly, I assume you must be thinking I'm saying something I'm not. Or you've just hit peak both sideism.
CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk
in Cloak Room
Posted
The vaccines aren't harmful to kids. Some of the diseases are more harmful to kids than flu, some are less harmful. The primary factor is effectiveness of the vaccines. The flu vaccine isn't very effective and changes every year. It would create an administrative nightmare to enforce flu vaccinations for school. People should still get it, but mandating it isn't as critical or effective at reducing disease. So far, the evidence is that the Covid-19 vaccines are more like the other types of vaccinations schools already require in terms of effectiveness.