Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
You have seen the light.
Oh, snap, was that sarcasm?
You have seen the light.
Oh, snap, was that sarcasm?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
- Thread starter MinnFan
- Start date
leswp1
New member
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Only if you haven't read them all
As I get older I am more leery to be so black and white about things. I have found too many times there is more to the story than what is presented. After all, we only get what passes through the filter of the media which ever side it is on at this second.
You have seen the light.
Only if you haven't read them all
As I get older I am more leery to be so black and white about things. I have found too many times there is more to the story than what is presented. After all, we only get what passes through the filter of the media which ever side it is on at this second.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Isn't her job to uphold the law no matter what the people think?
Isn't her job to uphold the law no matter what the people think?
leswp1
New member
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Well, at the time a lot of people thought the guy had broken the law. That's why they supported/encouraged her stance.
Well, at the time a lot of people thought the guy had broken the law. That's why they supported/encouraged her stance.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Well on the McMartin side, the original complaint stemmed from a woman with schizophrenia who first accused her husband of molesting her son, then the school. Yes, that is the truth...all it took to destroy the lives of an entire family and have shrinks convince dozens of kids they were molested was one psychotic woman claiming her son was abused and CHANGING HER STORY! You just cant make that up...Ray Buckey was in jail for nearly 7 years for the trial (he was never convicted of anything that was just arrest and trial) because of that.
As for the interviews of the kids themselves, this isnt hindsight on our parts they were destroyed at the time by experts. Calling kids stupid if they didn't remember things the way the interviewer said they should, asking leading questions that were guaranteed to get the kid to answer yes to whatever was asked. In McMartin the videos were used as evidence and ripped to shreds by fellow experts. (and from what I have read the same types of interviews happened in the Mass case and that was the only evidence the state had)
Look, I am sure at the time people were going crazy about it in Mass, and I can't say I blame them especially since the hysteria was everywhere at the time. (McMartin was in California as was the Kern County Case, The Bronx had their case, Wee Care in NJ, Glendale Montessori in Florida, Little Rascals in NC...along with dozens of others) Once the hysteria starts it can be hard to stop and in many cases that is what happened here. Then parents freak out, take their kid to an expert and it snowballs even further into a panic. It is easy in hindsight to say everyone was wrong but at the time I doubt it seemed that way. That doesn't excuse the injustices though. (not that you suggested it did)
The problem is the prosecutors should be able to see beyond that...when the only evidence you have is the testimony of kids that even without a critical eye barely stands the sniff test you have to step back. There is a reason why there was no convictions on the McMartin case and many of these cases were later reversed on appeal, and it isn't because judges just love sending child rapists free.
Well on the McMartin side, the original complaint stemmed from a woman with schizophrenia who first accused her husband of molesting her son, then the school. Yes, that is the truth...all it took to destroy the lives of an entire family and have shrinks convince dozens of kids they were molested was one psychotic woman claiming her son was abused and CHANGING HER STORY! You just cant make that up...Ray Buckey was in jail for nearly 7 years for the trial (he was never convicted of anything that was just arrest and trial) because of that.
As for the interviews of the kids themselves, this isnt hindsight on our parts they were destroyed at the time by experts. Calling kids stupid if they didn't remember things the way the interviewer said they should, asking leading questions that were guaranteed to get the kid to answer yes to whatever was asked. In McMartin the videos were used as evidence and ripped to shreds by fellow experts. (and from what I have read the same types of interviews happened in the Mass case and that was the only evidence the state had)
Look, I am sure at the time people were going crazy about it in Mass, and I can't say I blame them especially since the hysteria was everywhere at the time. (McMartin was in California as was the Kern County Case, The Bronx had their case, Wee Care in NJ, Glendale Montessori in Florida, Little Rascals in NC...along with dozens of others) Once the hysteria starts it can be hard to stop and in many cases that is what happened here. Then parents freak out, take their kid to an expert and it snowballs even further into a panic. It is easy in hindsight to say everyone was wrong but at the time I doubt it seemed that way. That doesn't excuse the injustices though. (not that you suggested it did)
The problem is the prosecutors should be able to see beyond that...when the only evidence you have is the testimony of kids that even without a critical eye barely stands the sniff test you have to step back. There is a reason why there was no convictions on the McMartin case and many of these cases were later reversed on appeal, and it isn't because judges just love sending child rapists free.
leswp1
New member
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Nice post Handyman.
Now that we have so much more info on how to interview, and how people can actually creat memories for themself if they are interviewed the right way I would be really suspect any prosecutor who got caught up but do you think people thought that way then? (real question) It seems things were a lot less analyzed then than now. Now everything is thought about and then thought about again.
I was in school when this went down and we actually had classes in how to interview after this stuff happened. Never ask anything but a vague open ended question. WHen I was in undergrad it was ask point blank- you will get better info.
Nice post Handyman.
Now that we have so much more info on how to interview, and how people can actually creat memories for themself if they are interviewed the right way I would be really suspect any prosecutor who got caught up but do you think people thought that way then? (real question) It seems things were a lot less analyzed then than now. Now everything is thought about and then thought about again.
I was in school when this went down and we actually had classes in how to interview after this stuff happened. Never ask anything but a vague open ended question. WHen I was in undergrad it was ask point blank- you will get better info.
Last edited:
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
joe wins the thread!
And les, I think prosecutors do whatever gets them the most press (or whatever is in their own best interests) just like everyone else. As much as it would rule, life isnt like Law and Order
RIP Jerry Orbach
joe wins the thread!
And les, I think prosecutors do whatever gets them the most press (or whatever is in their own best interests) just like everyone else. As much as it would rule, life isnt like Law and Order
RIP Jerry Orbach
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
I haven't even mentioned the case that put Martha on the map: her prosecution of Ray and Shirley Souza of Lowell for sexual abuse based on "recovered memories" of their middle aged daughter (the Souzas were in their 60's).
Actually, the Souza case involved both agressive questioning of children and "repressed memory" quackery since the adult daughter's children were questioned very aggressively and, whadya know, THEY had been sexually abused by their grandparents.
The premise of "recovered memories" is that child victims of incest repress those memories, generally until a "therapist" is able to "recover" them. The concept is that the memories are so horrific, the child represses them as a defense mechanism. Strangely, no child victims of the Holocaust seem to have repressed their memories of that experience, but I digress.
As surely as the concept was developed, "therapists" who "specialized" in "recovering" memories cropped up like weeds. And wouldn't you know it, when these unhappy, single, fat, under employed, drunken women went to the "therapists" it turns out they WERE victims of incest and had "repressed" it, and naturally required a long course of expensive sessions to recover. In other words, these loser babes weren't responsible for their own miserable lives, their parents were.
In the case of the Souza daughter, she combined "repressed" memories of her own abuse plus the contemporaneous abuse of her children by her parents. Now imagine you and your wife are in yours 60's and prosecutor Martha Coakley is accusing you of sexual misconduct with your daughter from 20 or 30 years ago. No evidence whatsoever, just the "recovered" memories of your daughter. Plus, Martha is also accusing you of having sexually abused your grandchildren, thanks to relentless questioning. In the case of the ancient allegations, how do you possible defend yourself? In the case of the allegations from the grandchildren, they were suffused with the usual, unbeleavable nonsense. Fantasy stuff, made up by children under stress, including, but not limited to claims that their grandparents had somehow inserted their heads into the kids' vaginas!
In order to pursue these prosecutions (I can't speak definitatively for Massachusetts) it was necessary to suspend the statute of limitations in this specific type of case. Reminder: the statute of limitations is designed to protect people from out of control prosecutors.
The steam escaped from this crank "movement" when a man named Gary Ramona sued his daughter's "therapists." Ramona was a successful executive for Robert Mondavi, and his unhappy middle aged daughter sought "therapy" from a "repressed memory" specialist. Needless to say, the "therapist" found some, which started a legal nightmare for Romona. Subsequently, he sued the "therapists" (who had "recovered" the memories when his daughter was under the influence of powerful drugs) and got a huge judgement against them. Poof, this movement disappeared virtually overnight. BTW, the drug used on Ramona's daughter was the same one used on the first boy who accused Michael Jackson. And it was only under the influence of this drug (administered by his father) that the kid "remembered" what Jackson had "done" to him.
Anyway, the prosecution of these poor people was the jewel in Martha's crown. The success that put her on the map and on track for the US Senate. I'm sure she's never looked back.
I haven't even mentioned the case that put Martha on the map: her prosecution of Ray and Shirley Souza of Lowell for sexual abuse based on "recovered memories" of their middle aged daughter (the Souzas were in their 60's).
Actually, the Souza case involved both agressive questioning of children and "repressed memory" quackery since the adult daughter's children were questioned very aggressively and, whadya know, THEY had been sexually abused by their grandparents.
The premise of "recovered memories" is that child victims of incest repress those memories, generally until a "therapist" is able to "recover" them. The concept is that the memories are so horrific, the child represses them as a defense mechanism. Strangely, no child victims of the Holocaust seem to have repressed their memories of that experience, but I digress.
As surely as the concept was developed, "therapists" who "specialized" in "recovering" memories cropped up like weeds. And wouldn't you know it, when these unhappy, single, fat, under employed, drunken women went to the "therapists" it turns out they WERE victims of incest and had "repressed" it, and naturally required a long course of expensive sessions to recover. In other words, these loser babes weren't responsible for their own miserable lives, their parents were.
In the case of the Souza daughter, she combined "repressed" memories of her own abuse plus the contemporaneous abuse of her children by her parents. Now imagine you and your wife are in yours 60's and prosecutor Martha Coakley is accusing you of sexual misconduct with your daughter from 20 or 30 years ago. No evidence whatsoever, just the "recovered" memories of your daughter. Plus, Martha is also accusing you of having sexually abused your grandchildren, thanks to relentless questioning. In the case of the ancient allegations, how do you possible defend yourself? In the case of the allegations from the grandchildren, they were suffused with the usual, unbeleavable nonsense. Fantasy stuff, made up by children under stress, including, but not limited to claims that their grandparents had somehow inserted their heads into the kids' vaginas!
In order to pursue these prosecutions (I can't speak definitatively for Massachusetts) it was necessary to suspend the statute of limitations in this specific type of case. Reminder: the statute of limitations is designed to protect people from out of control prosecutors.
The steam escaped from this crank "movement" when a man named Gary Ramona sued his daughter's "therapists." Ramona was a successful executive for Robert Mondavi, and his unhappy middle aged daughter sought "therapy" from a "repressed memory" specialist. Needless to say, the "therapist" found some, which started a legal nightmare for Romona. Subsequently, he sued the "therapists" (who had "recovered" the memories when his daughter was under the influence of powerful drugs) and got a huge judgement against them. Poof, this movement disappeared virtually overnight. BTW, the drug used on Ramona's daughter was the same one used on the first boy who accused Michael Jackson. And it was only under the influence of this drug (administered by his father) that the kid "remembered" what Jackson had "done" to him.
Anyway, the prosecution of these poor people was the jewel in Martha's crown. The success that put her on the map and on track for the US Senate. I'm sure she's never looked back.
Last edited:
leswp1
New member
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Recently (within the last few weeks) there was some definitive research out that dealt with memory that was pretty interesting. If I remember correctly it said that the brain is very maleable when it comes to memory. If one does not have a memory and is asked if they have a certain memory the brain may create one. There was a remodeling of the physiologic pathways and a bunch more of technical stuff that I was too fried to absorb at the time. Pretty sure this was an actual study rather than a bunch of anecdotal stuff or suppositions that had previously been the answer to the debate.
Recently (within the last few weeks) there was some definitive research out that dealt with memory that was pretty interesting. If I remember correctly it said that the brain is very maleable when it comes to memory. If one does not have a memory and is asked if they have a certain memory the brain may create one. There was a remodeling of the physiologic pathways and a bunch more of technical stuff that I was too fried to absorb at the time. Pretty sure this was an actual study rather than a bunch of anecdotal stuff or suppositions that had previously been the answer to the debate.
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Jackson was the perfect patsy, a very wierd lifestyle and persona and that childlike asexuality. Not to mention a box car full of money. The Arvizos, of whom you speak, were simple grifters. Michael's "crime" in that case was supporting whichever one of the Arvizo kids had cancer and seeing him through to remission. The cad.
It was the dentist father of the first boy (Jordy? Joady?) who personally administered a powerful drug to his son to elicit the claims of sexual abuse. However, this father was able to walk away from the man who molested his son, for the right amount of money. At the time, there was a huge custody battle involving the kid. And what better way to "prove" your ex-wife shouldn't have custody is to establish that she put your son in the hands of a child abuser? A really, really, really rich child abuser. This father recently killed himself. Evidently his career as a screen writer hadn't worked out the way he wanted.
Maureen Orth (Tim Russert's widow) wrote extensively and persuasively on the first case in Vanity Fair. I have no earthly idea whether Michael abused kids, but when huge amounts of money are involved, a good deal of skepticism is indicated.
Jackson was the perfect patsy, a very wierd lifestyle and persona and that childlike asexuality. Not to mention a box car full of money. The Arvizos, of whom you speak, were simple grifters. Michael's "crime" in that case was supporting whichever one of the Arvizo kids had cancer and seeing him through to remission. The cad.
It was the dentist father of the first boy (Jordy? Joady?) who personally administered a powerful drug to his son to elicit the claims of sexual abuse. However, this father was able to walk away from the man who molested his son, for the right amount of money. At the time, there was a huge custody battle involving the kid. And what better way to "prove" your ex-wife shouldn't have custody is to establish that she put your son in the hands of a child abuser? A really, really, really rich child abuser. This father recently killed himself. Evidently his career as a screen writer hadn't worked out the way he wanted.
Maureen Orth (Tim Russert's widow) wrote extensively and persuasively on the first case in Vanity Fair. I have no earthly idea whether Michael abused kids, but when huge amounts of money are involved, a good deal of skepticism is indicated.
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
I posted earlier about a segment ABC News did a few years ago in which a little boy, under persistent questioning, "remembered" and provided details of a broken arm sustained by his older brother. 'Course the older brother had never broken his arm. Scary.
I posted earlier about a segment ABC News did a few years ago in which a little boy, under persistent questioning, "remembered" and provided details of a broken arm sustained by his older brother. 'Course the older brother had never broken his arm. Scary.
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Old or 'buried' memories are insanely easy to alter or invent with leading questions. There is a lot of research backing this up. One study I remember involved showing people a picture of a hot air balloon and telling subjects that their parents had supplied the picture (which was of course false.) peoples' would fumble through their recollections of it. Their recollections would change, especially based on the type of questions asked.
There is a lot of empirical research throwing *serious* questions into the validity of retrieved memories, and it goes back quite a few years. I'm not an expert by any means, though.
Leswp, how can you can you say there was a definitive study, but not know if it was actually a study? Nevermind what methodology, controls, or assumptions were made. Sidenote: neuronal mapping isn't really possible, so I'm not sure what kind of pathway changes you're talking about.
Old or 'buried' memories are insanely easy to alter or invent with leading questions. There is a lot of research backing this up. One study I remember involved showing people a picture of a hot air balloon and telling subjects that their parents had supplied the picture (which was of course false.) peoples' would fumble through their recollections of it. Their recollections would change, especially based on the type of questions asked.
There is a lot of empirical research throwing *serious* questions into the validity of retrieved memories, and it goes back quite a few years. I'm not an expert by any means, though.
Leswp, how can you can you say there was a definitive study, but not know if it was actually a study? Nevermind what methodology, controls, or assumptions were made. Sidenote: neuronal mapping isn't really possible, so I'm not sure what kind of pathway changes you're talking about.
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
The point I was endeavoring to make about Coakley was "recovered" memories and the investigative techniques used in the two high profile Massachusetts cases were junk science then. They're even more junk "sciency" now. In other words, her efforts in these cases were indefensible then even less defensible now.
The argument that "lots of people thought something had happened" boils down to suggesting that a DA grab a lighted torch, join the mob, and head to Dr. Frankenstein's castle. Is that what we really want from our prosecutors?
Although it's not a direct analogy, let's ask ourselves if the kids at a day care center accused the adults of being tax cheats or car theives or contract killers, what would be the odds of a prosecution, absent any corroboration? Zero. Would other adults be demanding prosecutions because "kids don't lie?" Would they be rallying around the battle cry of "believe the kids?" I doubt it.
Is it because the mere thought of an adult taking advantage of a child in this way is repulsive and generally invokes a hugely emotional response in us? I think so. Remember, in the 80's millions of families were putting their kids into daycare for the first time because millions of moms were entering the workforce. And that made millions of moms nervous about what could happen to their kids in the hands of strangers.
Pedophilia is generally a non-violent crime and the abuse almost never occurs with others watching and rarely involves women. Yet in all of these high profile day care cases claims were made that: the kids were tortured, the abuse occurred in groups and women were involved. In the McMartin case, a 67-year old wheel chair bound woman was indicted. Does that even sound possible, let alone probable?
In a "recovered" memory case like the Souzas, which Coakley prosecuted like Inspector Javert, how can it possibly be fair to prosecute people on the unsubstantiated "memories" of a troubled adult about what allegedly happened to her 20 or 30 years previously? How can you possibly defend yourself against such charges?
One other form of insanity which appeared in those days was the effort to let "victims" of Multiple Personality Disorder testify as more than one person. "Is Bobby here?" "Can Bobby tell us about the killing?" There are people who suffer from MPD, but it is a rarely seen phenomenon, not the common occurrence we heard about on Oprah or from Roseanne.
The premise of the "recovered" memory movement and the MPD believers is that sexual abuse in childhood is somehow so uniquely horrible that these defenses kick in--the memories are somehow buried by the mind, or other personalities are created to deal with them . What is so special about sexual abuse? Does anybody think that kids old enough to comprehend what's going on are going to "forget" what happened to them the last several days in Port au Prince? Of course not. These memories may fade, but they will be there, easily recalled, even in old age, without the help of a "therapist."
These concepts are nonsense and political rather than scientific. As I mentioned previously, the "recovered" memory movement disappeared, virtually overnight, when Gary Ramona got a half million dollar judgement againt the "practitioners" who helped destroy his life. "Oops, we're financially accountable for our malpractice? Well then, we're outta here!"
Martha Coakley is certainly not the only prosecutor to drink the Kool aid, she is, however, the only one running for the United States Senate on Tuesday. And though her misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfesance on these matters is not directly related to her potential duties in Washington, the voters of Massachusetts should not reward her thuggish, self-aggrandizing behavior with a "promotion."
The point I was endeavoring to make about Coakley was "recovered" memories and the investigative techniques used in the two high profile Massachusetts cases were junk science then. They're even more junk "sciency" now. In other words, her efforts in these cases were indefensible then even less defensible now.
The argument that "lots of people thought something had happened" boils down to suggesting that a DA grab a lighted torch, join the mob, and head to Dr. Frankenstein's castle. Is that what we really want from our prosecutors?
Although it's not a direct analogy, let's ask ourselves if the kids at a day care center accused the adults of being tax cheats or car theives or contract killers, what would be the odds of a prosecution, absent any corroboration? Zero. Would other adults be demanding prosecutions because "kids don't lie?" Would they be rallying around the battle cry of "believe the kids?" I doubt it.
Is it because the mere thought of an adult taking advantage of a child in this way is repulsive and generally invokes a hugely emotional response in us? I think so. Remember, in the 80's millions of families were putting their kids into daycare for the first time because millions of moms were entering the workforce. And that made millions of moms nervous about what could happen to their kids in the hands of strangers.
Pedophilia is generally a non-violent crime and the abuse almost never occurs with others watching and rarely involves women. Yet in all of these high profile day care cases claims were made that: the kids were tortured, the abuse occurred in groups and women were involved. In the McMartin case, a 67-year old wheel chair bound woman was indicted. Does that even sound possible, let alone probable?
In a "recovered" memory case like the Souzas, which Coakley prosecuted like Inspector Javert, how can it possibly be fair to prosecute people on the unsubstantiated "memories" of a troubled adult about what allegedly happened to her 20 or 30 years previously? How can you possibly defend yourself against such charges?
One other form of insanity which appeared in those days was the effort to let "victims" of Multiple Personality Disorder testify as more than one person. "Is Bobby here?" "Can Bobby tell us about the killing?" There are people who suffer from MPD, but it is a rarely seen phenomenon, not the common occurrence we heard about on Oprah or from Roseanne.
The premise of the "recovered" memory movement and the MPD believers is that sexual abuse in childhood is somehow so uniquely horrible that these defenses kick in--the memories are somehow buried by the mind, or other personalities are created to deal with them . What is so special about sexual abuse? Does anybody think that kids old enough to comprehend what's going on are going to "forget" what happened to them the last several days in Port au Prince? Of course not. These memories may fade, but they will be there, easily recalled, even in old age, without the help of a "therapist."
These concepts are nonsense and political rather than scientific. As I mentioned previously, the "recovered" memory movement disappeared, virtually overnight, when Gary Ramona got a half million dollar judgement againt the "practitioners" who helped destroy his life. "Oops, we're financially accountable for our malpractice? Well then, we're outta here!"
Martha Coakley is certainly not the only prosecutor to drink the Kool aid, she is, however, the only one running for the United States Senate on Tuesday. And though her misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfesance on these matters is not directly related to her potential duties in Washington, the voters of Massachusetts should not reward her thuggish, self-aggrandizing behavior with a "promotion."
Last edited:
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
It must be a bad bill if this scenario is under discussion.
It must be a bad bill if this scenario is under discussion.
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
I think most Americans, whether they support this bill or not, are fair minded. And having relied so heavily on their 60 vote majority to get "health care" to where it is now, and then extend the middle finger to the voters if that majority is taken away would reveal an overwhelming arrogance and lack of fair play and reliance on the ends justifying the means. Potentially a very dangerous tactic. Imagine you're one of the dozens of Democratic congressmen elected in districts carried by John McCain. Imagine trying to explain this to your constituents. They might be inclined to take it out on you.
I think most Americans, whether they support this bill or not, are fair minded. And having relied so heavily on their 60 vote majority to get "health care" to where it is now, and then extend the middle finger to the voters if that majority is taken away would reveal an overwhelming arrogance and lack of fair play and reliance on the ends justifying the means. Potentially a very dangerous tactic. Imagine you're one of the dozens of Democratic congressmen elected in districts carried by John McCain. Imagine trying to explain this to your constituents. They might be inclined to take it out on you.
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Well the Boston Globe is beginning to see the light.
Les, you've commented on this in the past - anything more to add to the op-ed?
Well the Boston Globe is beginning to see the light.
Les, you've commented on this in the past - anything more to add to the op-ed?
leswp1
New member
Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
True and on point.
Also the new initiative in Mass wasn't mentioned at all- to have a 'medical home' primary~ is a farce. The Primary has all the risk and very little benefit. THe theory is the primary is clustered with specialists and controls referrals, etc. All the admin time to do this has no plan to reimburse the primary for the extra work. Specialists get same old deal.
In our area currently we have withhold for numerous measures. I lose money if the patient does not follow through with recommendations- no mammo- no $, no eye exam for diabetics- no $, pt uses one of the great pharmacy plans (7$/yr and get multiple generic meds at 9.99$ a 90 d supply) I lose $. Pt gets a deal and goes to someone out of plan and pays out of pocket- lose $. There is no way to regain withhold as they don't care what the patient actually does, just get credit if they stay with in the system and are billed for it. If I don't encourage my pt to pay 25$ copay to get his BP med at CVS I lose $. If I do they lose big time.
Big scam, no one is saying anything about it because it is 'measuring Quality outcomes'. No one does this to the specialists at the level they do it to primary care. Unless there is a massive overhall Family/internal medicine is priced out of almost everyone's range if they want to pay off loans when they get out of school. What idiot wants to be responsible for fascilitating all the care, getting no credit for a lot of it and not getting paid a thing to help the patient navigate the layers of nonsense the insurance co put in the way to keep the costs down. If I order almost any imaging test now the nurse has to spend 15-30 minutes of her time, not reimbursed to get a prior authorization. Can't use ancillary staff as they want all sorts of medical info. STUPID.
Everytime I see the ads from those azzhats from the society for responsible medical care I cringe. They are flooding the airwaves in support of Brown and going on about losing control of choice if Coakley gets elected and the bill passes. Hello? No one has a choice now unless they are very wealthy or lucky. Bark up another tree if you don't want the bill to pass.... Choice is already gone.
(bad week last week at work. you did ask.....)
True and on point.
Also the new initiative in Mass wasn't mentioned at all- to have a 'medical home' primary~ is a farce. The Primary has all the risk and very little benefit. THe theory is the primary is clustered with specialists and controls referrals, etc. All the admin time to do this has no plan to reimburse the primary for the extra work. Specialists get same old deal.
In our area currently we have withhold for numerous measures. I lose money if the patient does not follow through with recommendations- no mammo- no $, no eye exam for diabetics- no $, pt uses one of the great pharmacy plans (7$/yr and get multiple generic meds at 9.99$ a 90 d supply) I lose $. Pt gets a deal and goes to someone out of plan and pays out of pocket- lose $. There is no way to regain withhold as they don't care what the patient actually does, just get credit if they stay with in the system and are billed for it. If I don't encourage my pt to pay 25$ copay to get his BP med at CVS I lose $. If I do they lose big time.
Big scam, no one is saying anything about it because it is 'measuring Quality outcomes'. No one does this to the specialists at the level they do it to primary care. Unless there is a massive overhall Family/internal medicine is priced out of almost everyone's range if they want to pay off loans when they get out of school. What idiot wants to be responsible for fascilitating all the care, getting no credit for a lot of it and not getting paid a thing to help the patient navigate the layers of nonsense the insurance co put in the way to keep the costs down. If I order almost any imaging test now the nurse has to spend 15-30 minutes of her time, not reimbursed to get a prior authorization. Can't use ancillary staff as they want all sorts of medical info. STUPID.
Everytime I see the ads from those azzhats from the society for responsible medical care I cringe. They are flooding the airwaves in support of Brown and going on about losing control of choice if Coakley gets elected and the bill passes. Hello? No one has a choice now unless they are very wealthy or lucky. Bark up another tree if you don't want the bill to pass.... Choice is already gone.
(bad week last week at work. you did ask.....)