|
Noctone posted:I mean, only if they torpedo the filibuster, right? This is a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate limits discussion on those, meaning there is no filibuster.
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I think in the long run, its best for the Democrats, and the country, that the bill passes, people hate it, and then it gives the Democrats room to campaign on replacing Trumpcare with Medicare for all. The GOP are full of poo poo, but they are on the mark when they say Obamacare is collapsing. My brother's premiums (late 20s with no pre-existing conditions), with the maximum subsidy, are up to almost 350/month. Two more years of increases, and he is dropping out - as I imagine millions of others will. Let the Republicans own a healthcare disaster, use it to win back power, and then implement a real solution. Why do people think this? My understanding of the bill is that the big, hurtful changes come in 2020 or just after, so no one will actually feel the pain until after the election.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Anybody care to hear the thoughts of a secret committee member? Here's Sen Pat Toomey's OpEd statement about the new bill and how the changes are meant to help poor Pennsylvanians.quote:Despite inaccurate reports to the contrary, the Senate draft bill keeps Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans. Obamacare created a new category of eligibility: working age, able-bodied, childless adults. Under the Senate bill, both the 700,000 Pennsylvanians who signed up for this expansion and future expansion enrollees will retain their federal eligibility for the program. In fact, the federal government will pay at least 90 percent of their costs through 2020, with states paying the balance. Then, over a four-year phase-in period, states wishing to cover this new category of recipients will be required to pay their fair share — only 48 percent in Pennsylvania — for the Medicaid expansion. This is the same amount states currently pay for every traditional Medicaid category: the aged, disabled, children, and families. See, the Medicaid expansion isn't being cut; we're just making it so that states have to fund it of their own accord. Totally different. Shut up Gov. Tom Wolf, you don't know anything about PA's budget issues and how that will, inevitably, cause cuts to the stat's Medicaid program if Federal funding is cut. Also, HSA's, eliminating Obamacare taxes (which taxes?), and cutting regulations are the best way to lower premiums, because those have always lead to lower prices for consumers. I know this is a touch PA specific, but I hadn't seen that any of the other Senators in the "Healthcare Working Group" had issued such complete statements about the Senate's bill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That is more the instinctive human bias for doing something over doing nothing. B-12 or PSA's? For screenings, I think it's more how counter-intuitive limiting screenings = better health outcomes is. Also, is this pretty much the way things are with most screenings? I know breast cancer screenings went the same way as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:uuuhhhhhhhh How can this be determined by just the governor? That doesn't even sound like how things could work. As in, wouldn't this be a decision of the states legislatures? I guess it's because there's more Republican governors than Republican controlled legislatures. BirdOfPlay fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:So yeah, I guess it is a major concern if Epic considers patient data and a patient's EMR to essentially be the same thing. Which is dumb. From what has been posted, that's exactly what it sounds like. If most of the patient's info is already in the EMR, I can easily see someone making the decision to collapse the two records into one (or just never thinking to do that from the beginning). Crashrat posted:The only way I can see any logical reason for this is that Epic is just trying to *force* some kind of progression in the medical field by making the patient's chosen sex visible. That is highly unlikely. Lazy/non-thoughtful developers or being designed a decade ago or later* are the more likely explanations. This ties in to how programs are designed and use information. Gender would be defined as a custom value and, probably in this case, is defined as [MALE] or [FEMALE]. Now, increasing the definition of the Gender type to include the appropriate trans values would be trivial. What would not be trivial is making sure that everything works as it should. The biggest hurdle is that Gender is attached to the patient's EMR, which, I imagine, is used by the entire Epic system. By adding in those definitions, every part of the Epic system will need to be updated to know how to use these new values correctly. They'd also need to test everything in general to make sure that the old definitions still work, because, surprisingly, that stuff can break or cause stupid issues from these changes as well! Not to mention making sure that EMR's from the previous version import correctly as well. I'm not saying that Epic is excused from doing nothing on this issue but trying to explain why it would require a significant amount of work and investment on their part. Regarding customization, this is one of those areas where it has to be hard-coded into the system. The head of IT at a hospital can't just whip up a new Gender value for their system because of how it is handled by the system. *This is just a simple matter of most people from not being knowledgeable about trans issues at the time. quote:"a regular person" Minor thing: if this is your way of saying that you're "not trans", the term you're looking for is "cis". If you have problems with that term, just say "not trans" instead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 21:00
|
|