Too much bread, not enough butter -
Aug. 22nd, 2007 09:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kyburgAnd I got stuff to get back to.
..it's also possible that something else was at work: galloping elitism. Vick may not have had many advantages as a small boy, but he's had every advantage since then. From the instant he picked up a football he was over-praised, overpaid and excused by idolatry. The truth is that athletic prowess can breed a kind of coldness. We hold star athletes to be more valuable than other people -- and we literally pay them as if they are worth more than others. Roy Baumeister, scholar of social psychology at Florida State, theorizes in his book "Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty," that heinous acts may not come from a lack of self-esteem but rather from egotism, a surfeit of self-regard.
This is a lovely piece of work, for no other reason it's succinct and to the point without getting too wrapped up in personal opinion (which, is arguably the point of this kind of column in the first place). But it gave me a term I could wrap a number of news items up in.
"A surfeit of self-regard."
I'd like to enhance the buzz word 'entitlement' with this statement. As is, where does it come from?
Let's consider this with regard to two of the biggest stories in health care this week:
As of Oct. 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer reimburse hospitals for the extra costs of treating injuries from eight preventable conditions. Medicare officials said they plan to add three more conditions to the no-pay list next year.
The eight conditions are patient falls, pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections, vascular-catheter-associated infections, mediastinitis, air emboli, removal of objects left in the body during surgery, and injury caused by use of incompatible blood products.
Moreover, the rule change also prohibits hospitals from billing the patients for "any charges associated with the hospital-acquired complication." *
And -
The Bush administration has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for states to extend health coverage to children in middle-income families, The New York Times reported on Monday.
Rushing towards socialized medicine? Not so much - because, look - these are actions taken to gut the one-payer plan we do have.
Who benefits from these changes?
Well, if Medicare doesn't pay - the patient, or the patient's insurance provider does. This does not immediately translate into more claims, per ce. But it certainly ups the ante towards your perceived need for the beast, doesn't it?
Better have that coverage! If Medicare thinks your claim is bogus because someone Oopsed - you'd better be Prepared!
Buy more insurance!
And the second one? The story itself tells the tale - "Administration officials said the changes were aimed at returning the focus to low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage, the Times said."
You tell me.
Why does insurance have such pull?
Well, you can invest in it, like any other company. And in this case - if they make money, so do you. Simply put.
How the heck can anyone expect socialized medicine with this sort of thing in place? It's making people money. LOTS of it. Sadly, the providers don't see any benefit from this - unless they are tied to selling insurance (HMOs, largely), and balance their books against what they take in premiums vs. costs to operate.
And as long as some people can keep paying the costs of this cycle - while making that money to do it in the process - I don't see any motivation to change a thing.
We'll socialize - to a single payer plan like AT&T does telecom.
How do they sleep at night.
"A surfeit of self-regard."
I got mine - screw you.
..
I don't need to tell you how easy it is to make medical 'mistakes' with regard to pharmaceutical issues, do I?
..it's also possible that something else was at work: galloping elitism. Vick may not have had many advantages as a small boy, but he's had every advantage since then. From the instant he picked up a football he was over-praised, overpaid and excused by idolatry. The truth is that athletic prowess can breed a kind of coldness. We hold star athletes to be more valuable than other people -- and we literally pay them as if they are worth more than others. Roy Baumeister, scholar of social psychology at Florida State, theorizes in his book "Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty," that heinous acts may not come from a lack of self-esteem but rather from egotism, a surfeit of self-regard.
This is a lovely piece of work, for no other reason it's succinct and to the point without getting too wrapped up in personal opinion (which, is arguably the point of this kind of column in the first place). But it gave me a term I could wrap a number of news items up in.
"A surfeit of self-regard."
I'd like to enhance the buzz word 'entitlement' with this statement. As is, where does it come from?
Let's consider this with regard to two of the biggest stories in health care this week:
As of Oct. 1, 2008, Medicare will no longer reimburse hospitals for the extra costs of treating injuries from eight preventable conditions. Medicare officials said they plan to add three more conditions to the no-pay list next year.
The eight conditions are patient falls, pressure ulcers, urinary tract infections, vascular-catheter-associated infections, mediastinitis, air emboli, removal of objects left in the body during surgery, and injury caused by use of incompatible blood products.
Moreover, the rule change also prohibits hospitals from billing the patients for "any charges associated with the hospital-acquired complication." *
And -
The Bush administration has adopted new standards that would make it much more difficult for states to extend health coverage to children in middle-income families, The New York Times reported on Monday.
Rushing towards socialized medicine? Not so much - because, look - these are actions taken to gut the one-payer plan we do have.
Who benefits from these changes?
Well, if Medicare doesn't pay - the patient, or the patient's insurance provider does. This does not immediately translate into more claims, per ce. But it certainly ups the ante towards your perceived need for the beast, doesn't it?
Better have that coverage! If Medicare thinks your claim is bogus because someone Oopsed - you'd better be Prepared!
Buy more insurance!
And the second one? The story itself tells the tale - "Administration officials said the changes were aimed at returning the focus to low-income children and to make sure the program did not become a substitute for private health coverage, the Times said."
You tell me.
Why does insurance have such pull?
Well, you can invest in it, like any other company. And in this case - if they make money, so do you. Simply put.
How the heck can anyone expect socialized medicine with this sort of thing in place? It's making people money. LOTS of it. Sadly, the providers don't see any benefit from this - unless they are tied to selling insurance (HMOs, largely), and balance their books against what they take in premiums vs. costs to operate.
And as long as some people can keep paying the costs of this cycle - while making that money to do it in the process - I don't see any motivation to change a thing.
We'll socialize - to a single payer plan like AT&T does telecom.
How do they sleep at night.
"A surfeit of self-regard."
I got mine - screw you.
..
I don't need to tell you how easy it is to make medical 'mistakes' with regard to pharmaceutical issues, do I?
