Wal-mart really is evil.
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Tabloid journalism aside... (Hint: That was all a joke, Gene!!!)
Maybe this will make the whole point obvious to my friend Gene. This is the exact same thing as the Wal-Mart situation. Health plans - and even the federal government - are asserting their rights not to pay for the consequences of a misadventure involving a 3rd party. Only in this case, they cleverly avoid any lawyers jumping in to get a piece of the action.
This scenario is much more of a no-brainer to the average person on the street.
For what it's worth... The thing that makes this possible is improvements in the coding systems. Hospitals now have to include a modifier on the claim diagnostic code (DRG) which states whether a given condition was present on admission to the facility.
The best diagnostic coding system I've seen to date is the German modification (GM) of the ICD-10 coding system (International Classification of Diseases). Doctors hate having to provide all the detail, but the data that comes from their disciplined information systems is nothing short of remarkable. Better cars, faster roads, better data, and ... less litigation. Those crazy Germans...
- Bill
Maybe this will make the whole point obvious to my friend Gene. This is the exact same thing as the Wal-Mart situation. Health plans - and even the federal government - are asserting their rights not to pay for the consequences of a misadventure involving a 3rd party. Only in this case, they cleverly avoid any lawyers jumping in to get a piece of the action.
This scenario is much more of a no-brainer to the average person on the street.
For what it's worth... The thing that makes this possible is improvements in the coding systems. Hospitals now have to include a modifier on the claim diagnostic code (DRG) which states whether a given condition was present on admission to the facility.
The best diagnostic coding system I've seen to date is the German modification (GM) of the ICD-10 coding system (International Classification of Diseases). Doctors hate having to provide all the detail, but the data that comes from their disciplined information systems is nothing short of remarkable. Better cars, faster roads, better data, and ... less litigation. Those crazy Germans...
- Bill
WellPoint Says Won't Cover Costs Tied To Major Medical Errors
INDIANAPOLIS (AP)--Health insurer WellPoint Inc. (WLP) will start making hospitals pay for certain medical mistakes by cutting off reimbursement.
The insurer announced Wednesday it will not cover costs tied to three major medical errors, so-called "never events" like surgery on the wrong body part. It also may withhold payment for expenses tied to eight other problems triggered by hospital care, including bedsores or infections from a catheter.
WellPoint, the nation's largest health insurer with nearly 35 million members, is the latest payer to crack down on medical mistakes. The federal insurer Medicare has said bedsores and other preventable injuries will affect the level of reimbursement it provides.
Aetna Inc. (AET) announced several weeks ago it would no longer pay for "never events," a list of 28 serious and rare medical errors devised by the nonprofit National Quality Forum. Those events are mistakes that should never happen to patients, according to the forum.
WellPoint devised its list to spur improvement in U.S. hospital care, which is "not as high as it needs to be," according to Dr. Sam Nussbaum, the company's chief medical officer.
"It does not parallel the breathtaking advances in sciences and medicine that we know can make a difference in peoples lives," he said.
The insurer will cut off payment if surgery is done on the wrong patient or body part or if the wrong surgery is performed. It also may withhold payments tied to a host of other, more common problems. For instance, WellPoint may deny reimbursement for costs related to an infection caused by a catheter that was not changed frequently enough.
If WellPoint withholds payment, the hospitals - not the patients - would have to absorb the cost.
"All of our contracts say the patient cannot be billed if our review and assessment says that it was not medically appropriate," Nussbaum said.
WellPoint put 11 items on its initial quality checklist, but the insurer may expand that as the program develops. It tied the mistakes to reimbursement to ensure the problems receive proper attention from hospital administrators.
"We just want to make sure this gets the absolute full attention it deserves because at the end of the day peoples' lives are at risk," Nussbaum said.
Mistakes have already grabbed the attention of hospital executives, according to the American Hospital Association, which represents about 5,000 U.S. hospitals. WellPoint's program seems to parallel what the association has already asked hospitals to do, said Nancy Foster, its vice president for quality and patient safety.
Shares of Wellpoint fell 43 cents to $45.98 Wednesday.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 02, 2008 18:40 ET (22:40 GMT)
Step away for a second....
1) When I say the executives children don't have to get killed in Iraq, I am referring (obviously) not to a draft exemption, but to the fact that the army is full of disadvantaged kids, not billionaire's kids. Rich kids can join, but they can do a lot more other things too.
2) Bill asked how privacy laws prevented Walmart from offering to help out. My reply: they didn't.
3) Bill got upset when I said the family was willing to sign with a lawyer who took half the profits, as an indicator that they were willing to deal to get care for mom. He went on and on about the lawyer. Nonsequitor. My point: they were willing to play ball.
4) Bill said it was Walmart's duty to protect their shareholders. True. However, it may have been more productive to protect them by working something out with the family, e.g., by using my simple plan. Note: when an executive gives away a tiny fraction of his or her own wealth, the shareholders don't feel it.
5) "Its not realy DeBeers fault that people refuse to act rationally." --> Not that I have a huge problwm with marketing a stupid tradition, but--it IS DeBeers strategy to profit off this imperfection. Better example: Big Tobacco. You can't just market cigarettes to people, even just adults, and excuse all the death and suffering that occurs as personal choice. YOU made a personal choice to peddle death and addiction. This is sin, in my secular definition of the word.
6) "Don't think they didn't plan this out in advance. Again... they had to make this stand." No, they didn't; they could have preempted the problem and not taken that initial PR hit (which they DID take). Also: what did they win? If they're setting precedent that people can't keep their lawsuit winnings meant for healthcare costs, they're just as equally setting precedent that they (rather, the poor suffering shareholders) will then eat those costs to look good. Can they sustain that precedent? Either they DO and the battle was expensive and pointless, or they DON'T and future families can get hit. MAYBE all can win if W preempts future problems by assisting future families with collecting sufficient winnings for needed care--would be smart.
5)
1) When I say the executives children don't have to get killed in Iraq, I am referring (obviously) not to a draft exemption, but to the fact that the army is full of disadvantaged kids, not billionaire's kids. Rich kids can join, but they can do a lot more other things too.
2) Bill asked how privacy laws prevented Walmart from offering to help out. My reply: they didn't.
3) Bill got upset when I said the family was willing to sign with a lawyer who took half the profits, as an indicator that they were willing to deal to get care for mom. He went on and on about the lawyer. Nonsequitor. My point: they were willing to play ball.
4) Bill said it was Walmart's duty to protect their shareholders. True. However, it may have been more productive to protect them by working something out with the family, e.g., by using my simple plan. Note: when an executive gives away a tiny fraction of his or her own wealth, the shareholders don't feel it.
5) "Its not realy DeBeers fault that people refuse to act rationally." --> Not that I have a huge problwm with marketing a stupid tradition, but--it IS DeBeers strategy to profit off this imperfection. Better example: Big Tobacco. You can't just market cigarettes to people, even just adults, and excuse all the death and suffering that occurs as personal choice. YOU made a personal choice to peddle death and addiction. This is sin, in my secular definition of the word.
6) "Don't think they didn't plan this out in advance. Again... they had to make this stand." No, they didn't; they could have preempted the problem and not taken that initial PR hit (which they DID take). Also: what did they win? If they're setting precedent that people can't keep their lawsuit winnings meant for healthcare costs, they're just as equally setting precedent that they (rather, the poor suffering shareholders) will then eat those costs to look good. Can they sustain that precedent? Either they DO and the battle was expensive and pointless, or they DON'T and future families can get hit. MAYBE all can win if W preempts future problems by assisting future families with collecting sufficient winnings for needed care--would be smart.
5)
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
IJ
That the army is "full of disadvantaged kids" might be the popular view but its not all that accurate----I work with many officers in various CGSC gradute level programs and these folks are smart, talanted and have a drive to serve.
Frameing it as if the only possible motive to serve is because the have no other options is not IMO, on-banc accurate.
(certainly is for some--not for others)
Casting them all as "disadvantaged" does them a diservice.
"Rich kids" most certainly can join--and some do--some give up potentially high paying jobs to serve--Tillman comes to mind--among others.
I don't smoke.....but these days everyone knows what it can do to you....freedom of choice tends to imply that you have the freedom to do things...including the freedom to do things that are bad for you.
Its essentially a clash between freedoms......and its complex, if selling smokes is "peddling death" then why is not selling skydiving or basejumping or auto racing or drinking beer doing the same?
It gets people killed all time....where do you do you draw the line?
Honestly don't know myself.
Not trying to be argumentive here...just trying to illustrate the complexities.
As far as DeBeers is concerend...I stil don't see it as problem...nobody is making people buy its products....not their fault that people fail to act rationally even when they have the facts.
Most people don't really need a HD TV or a I-POD either.
That the army is "full of disadvantaged kids" might be the popular view but its not all that accurate----I work with many officers in various CGSC gradute level programs and these folks are smart, talanted and have a drive to serve.
Frameing it as if the only possible motive to serve is because the have no other options is not IMO, on-banc accurate.
(certainly is for some--not for others)
Casting them all as "disadvantaged" does them a diservice.
"Rich kids" most certainly can join--and some do--some give up potentially high paying jobs to serve--Tillman comes to mind--among others.
I don't smoke.....but these days everyone knows what it can do to you....freedom of choice tends to imply that you have the freedom to do things...including the freedom to do things that are bad for you.
Its essentially a clash between freedoms......and its complex, if selling smokes is "peddling death" then why is not selling skydiving or basejumping or auto racing or drinking beer doing the same?
It gets people killed all time....where do you do you draw the line?
Honestly don't know myself.
Not trying to be argumentive here...just trying to illustrate the complexities.
As far as DeBeers is concerend...I stil don't see it as problem...nobody is making people buy its products....not their fault that people fail to act rationally even when they have the facts.
Most people don't really need a HD TV or a I-POD either.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
Living can kill you too--happens all the time..cxt wrote: Its essentially a clash between freedoms......and its complex, if selling smokes is "peddling death" then why is not selling skydiving or basejumping or auto racing or drinking beer doing the same?
It gets people killed all time....where do you do you draw the line?
So selling tobacco is like selling life? 
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Jim
I thought that the leading cause of death was life.
I have real issues with sidestream smoke and my having to essentially pay for the healthcare of smokers--and work harder to make up for the statisically greater sicktime smokers have then non-smokers.......personal stuff like that.
But in the larger sense, I'm not sure that we have a right to tell people what and what not to do with their own bodies and health....beyond me not having to pay for somebody elses abuse of their health that is.
(yes we do, do that in all sorts of ways/areas--just not sure where the lines should be drawn--and I have huge issues here as well)
At the end of the day..presuming that it does not directly harm other people...if I want to slowly kill myself in a horrible fashion by smokeing then I should be able to do just that....its IMO a poor choice......but it is IMO my choice.
The freedom to make choices includes the freedom to make bad choices....and take responsibilty for the outcome.
I thought that the leading cause of death was life.
I have real issues with sidestream smoke and my having to essentially pay for the healthcare of smokers--and work harder to make up for the statisically greater sicktime smokers have then non-smokers.......personal stuff like that.
But in the larger sense, I'm not sure that we have a right to tell people what and what not to do with their own bodies and health....beyond me not having to pay for somebody elses abuse of their health that is.
(yes we do, do that in all sorts of ways/areas--just not sure where the lines should be drawn--and I have huge issues here as well)
At the end of the day..presuming that it does not directly harm other people...if I want to slowly kill myself in a horrible fashion by smokeing then I should be able to do just that....its IMO a poor choice......but it is IMO my choice.
The freedom to make choices includes the freedom to make bad choices....and take responsibilty for the outcome.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
People really aren't very rational creature, by nature. We're very susceptible to all sorts of stupidities (group-think, selection bias, etc). Even scientists, who are extensively trained in method and objectivity, still need to double-blind their tests to avoid accidentally injecting bias into the results. It's all well and good to say that people should have a choice to do stupid things, and I agree. But to ignore the fact that people are pretty easy to emotionally manipulate misses an important reality about human nature.cxt wrote:As far as DeBeers is concerend...I stil don't see it as problem...nobody is making people buy its products....not their fault that people fail to act rationally even when they have the facts.
Put another way, many people agree that advertising unhealthy products to children is unethical. Adults are more rational and more equipped to make good decisions than children, but nobody is completely rational and utterly immune to misinformation and persuasion. Thus I would say it is unethical to manipulate people into making bad decisions, even though there's some sense in which it's their own fault for letting themselves be persuaded.
"For instance, WellPoint may deny reimbursement for costs related to an infection caused by a catheter that was not changed frequently enough."
Funny thing is, there isn't data that changing catheters reduces infection rates. What DOES is a combination of insertion technique and maintenance care which reduces infection. And not having them there when not needed in the first place. It's welcome that people will stop paying for super bad errors. This won't help anything, though, because those errors are very rare (wrong site surgery, for example). Payers need to refuse to pay for a much broader range of errors than rare ones, and one way they can do this is by giving a lump sum for services, say, for hip replacement, and not paying more if there are followup complications like a blood clot, infection, delirium, whatever.
"That the army is "full of disadvantaged kids" might be the popular view but its not all that accurate----I work with many officers in various CGSC gradute level programs and these folks are smart, talanted and have a drive to serve."
I didn't say ONLY disadvantaged kids serve. My little brother was raised in the burbs by middle class parents and had many options to pay for college besides firing howitzers. However, look at a result from a quick google:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02528.html
I think the first sentance just about sums it up:
As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.
"Its essentially a clash between freedoms......and its complex, if selling smokes is "peddling death" then why is not selling skydiving or basejumping or auto racing or drinking beer doing the same?
It gets people killed all time....where do you do you draw the line?"
I don't recommend high risk sports, but they're not addictive, and the risks are a little more obvious. If you want a historical perspective on peddling sports risk, look up the lyrics for the Bob Dylan song about who killed Davey Moore--why, and what's the reason for? Beer can be enjoyed responsibly without addiction or intoxication--faaaaaar easier than smoking. Moderate ethanol use appears to have some health benefits. It's true that it has some risks, so sellers ought to warn users and do their part to prevent and manage abuse. Smoking, on the other hand, is something that no one can do safely, so promoting it means you go to hell.
Funny thing is, there isn't data that changing catheters reduces infection rates. What DOES is a combination of insertion technique and maintenance care which reduces infection. And not having them there when not needed in the first place. It's welcome that people will stop paying for super bad errors. This won't help anything, though, because those errors are very rare (wrong site surgery, for example). Payers need to refuse to pay for a much broader range of errors than rare ones, and one way they can do this is by giving a lump sum for services, say, for hip replacement, and not paying more if there are followup complications like a blood clot, infection, delirium, whatever.
"That the army is "full of disadvantaged kids" might be the popular view but its not all that accurate----I work with many officers in various CGSC gradute level programs and these folks are smart, talanted and have a drive to serve."
I didn't say ONLY disadvantaged kids serve. My little brother was raised in the burbs by middle class parents and had many options to pay for college besides firing howitzers. However, look at a result from a quick google:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02528.html
I think the first sentance just about sums it up:
As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.
"Its essentially a clash between freedoms......and its complex, if selling smokes is "peddling death" then why is not selling skydiving or basejumping or auto racing or drinking beer doing the same?
It gets people killed all time....where do you do you draw the line?"
I don't recommend high risk sports, but they're not addictive, and the risks are a little more obvious. If you want a historical perspective on peddling sports risk, look up the lyrics for the Bob Dylan song about who killed Davey Moore--why, and what's the reason for? Beer can be enjoyed responsibly without addiction or intoxication--faaaaaar easier than smoking. Moderate ethanol use appears to have some health benefits. It's true that it has some risks, so sellers ought to warn users and do their part to prevent and manage abuse. Smoking, on the other hand, is something that no one can do safely, so promoting it means you go to hell.
--Ian
Anyone ever wonder what Herbs Kanbun sold ? -
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Well... Where do I start with this, Ian?IJ wrote:
I think the first sentance just about sums it up:
As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.
I have relatives in the service who don't need to be there, but are. It's worth mentioning that they aren't idiots, so the military rightfully takes advantage of the mental and physical skills they bring to the table. Should they feel ashamed of that? I call that another example of the land of opportunity.
Furthermore...
It was my great grandfather who came over as an immigrant during the potato famine, and served in the Union Army at the tender age of 14. Apparently the Yankees couldn't stomach fighting The South, but had no problem taking starving immigrants off the boats and sending them off to do their dirty work. It's an ages-old story.
So... My great grandfather served both for The Union Army that The Union couldn't fill with its own citizens, and later on the western frontier where these newest citizens were helping older citizens fight even older residents of our land.
Obviously given the fact that I am blogging here, my great grandfather lived long enough to pass his genes and his pocket watch on to me. While my great grandfather had some unflattering things to say about how he was treated (in terms of keeping promises made to him), the opportunity was appreciated.
So... I fail to see what this has to do with Wal-Mart executives, Ian. Wasn't it a trucker who injured this woman, or did I miss something? Wasn't it Wal-Mart who paid for her health care, or did I miss something? Wasn't it a lawyer without this woman's concern in mind who took more than half the $1 million settlement and lost most of the rest of it to Wal-Mart because it never belonged to his client in the first place, or did I miss something? Wasn't it our Commander in Chief who sent the troops over to punish someone for violating 16 UN resolutions and shooting at our planes protecting the no-fly zones, or did I miss something? (WMDs aside...)
And didn't The Supreme Court vindicate Wal-Mart's position when they refused to hear the case? Good for Wal-Mart - IMO - for asserting their rights.
And didn't Wal-Mart come through and help the woman after having proven their point? It certainly was NOT her lawyer who did anything good for her.
And where's the evidence that no Wal-Mart executives have kids or relatives serving in Iraq?
Can you say non sequitur? Yellow journalism? Media bias?
- Bill
Wasn't it a lawyer without this woman's concern in mind who took more than half the $1 million settlement and lost most of the rest of it to Wal-Mart because it never belonged to his client in the first place, or did I miss something?
Hard to understand and believe how badly botched up plaintiff's 'representation' was in this case.
Van
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
You're missing it, Bill. You're htting this woman's lawyer, without a single fact to back you up. Unless you have some intimate knowledge of the case that the rest of us aren't privy to, you're just spouting off more irrational rantings from someone who bets the losing side on these cases.
Pres. Bush didn't invade Iraq because of UN resolutions. He used WMDs as the single reason. As a person who continuously wants folks to take "personal responsibility", you're giving him an awefully big pass for openly lying to us. You're missing this one as well.
I, too, have relatives who joined the service, despite their somewhat priviledged upbringing. And I have relatives who joined the service right off the boat from Italy. It was the only real way to become a citizen at that time. And the North had over 2 million troops at its disposal, and many Union regiments never even saw combat. The South, as valiant as they fought, never had a chance. While your great-grandfather's stories are wonderful and rightfully a source of pride, to say that the North didn't have enough troops becasue they couldn't stomach fighting the South is an embellishment. But, then again, I'm not convinced you're happy the North won to begin with.
Cheers,
Gene
Pres. Bush didn't invade Iraq because of UN resolutions. He used WMDs as the single reason. As a person who continuously wants folks to take "personal responsibility", you're giving him an awefully big pass for openly lying to us. You're missing this one as well.
I, too, have relatives who joined the service, despite their somewhat priviledged upbringing. And I have relatives who joined the service right off the boat from Italy. It was the only real way to become a citizen at that time. And the North had over 2 million troops at its disposal, and many Union regiments never even saw combat. The South, as valiant as they fought, never had a chance. While your great-grandfather's stories are wonderful and rightfully a source of pride, to say that the North didn't have enough troops becasue they couldn't stomach fighting the South is an embellishment. But, then again, I'm not convinced you're happy the North won to begin with.
Cheers,
Gene
Bill, long story about your relative's military service aside, all I did here was make a small point about the military: the disadvantaged are doing more than their proportionate share. Just because people who have other options or your grandparents joined the service, this remains true. The reason is people with more opportunities would rather take them than get shot at and risk lifelong physical or mental sequelae if they're not killed outright.
The reason I brought this up is because this family lost a child (not just their offspring, but literally) to the war, and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if extremely lucky Wal Mart children who never risked having a net worth under the millions to billions just chipped in with some cash they never would have missed anyway.
I STILL don't see what precedent Walmart set here other than 1) we can take your winnings to cover our costs like our contract says (which is just) and 2) we'd like to negate the whole point of that victory by giving you the cash, which means they're either caving to the media pressure the family generated, or planning not to seek their money, or planning to refund it in the future. The first option isn't a victory and sets a precedent of its own which won't help their shareholders, and the second and third are actions that negate their winning in the first place. Cheaper to just pay the family if they were going to cave in the end, no?
Meanwhile, while this family ought to have known what they were getting into and should bear the responsibility for not having adquate insurance blah blah blah, I tend to agree with Gene that GW should pay up on his gamble. He invaded Iraq because of the WMD (I mean the humanitarian urgency, the same reason he invaded Darfur), and now that there are none, now that he utterly mishandled the planning for the occupation and so many missteps were made that the infrastructure is in the toilet, many iraqis are worse off than they were before, and sectarian violence has become the main theme, shouldn't he repay the trillions this war has cost us and will cost our children? The ones that weren't killed by IEDs anyway?
The reason I brought this up is because this family lost a child (not just their offspring, but literally) to the war, and it wouldn't be such a bad thing if extremely lucky Wal Mart children who never risked having a net worth under the millions to billions just chipped in with some cash they never would have missed anyway.
I STILL don't see what precedent Walmart set here other than 1) we can take your winnings to cover our costs like our contract says (which is just) and 2) we'd like to negate the whole point of that victory by giving you the cash, which means they're either caving to the media pressure the family generated, or planning not to seek their money, or planning to refund it in the future. The first option isn't a victory and sets a precedent of its own which won't help their shareholders, and the second and third are actions that negate their winning in the first place. Cheaper to just pay the family if they were going to cave in the end, no?
Meanwhile, while this family ought to have known what they were getting into and should bear the responsibility for not having adquate insurance blah blah blah, I tend to agree with Gene that GW should pay up on his gamble. He invaded Iraq because of the WMD (I mean the humanitarian urgency, the same reason he invaded Darfur), and now that there are none, now that he utterly mishandled the planning for the occupation and so many missteps were made that the infrastructure is in the toilet, many iraqis are worse off than they were before, and sectarian violence has become the main theme, shouldn't he repay the trillions this war has cost us and will cost our children? The ones that weren't killed by IEDs anyway?
--Ian
