anon_
1mo ago
The answer is that the guidelines say that level 4 is when "more complex decision making is required" or a diagnostic test like an ultrasound is required, which is what they did. OK, but then you charged us separately for the ultrasound and the doctor's time, so you are essentially double-counting.
I haven't seen your details, but the complex issue could be the ED physician and the extra doctor's time was probably the radiologist. It's not double counting.
anon_
1mo ago
I mean, that's the problem. The system can be issue-based or it can be time-based. But it can't be both.
I thought lawyers billing me in 15 minute increments was bullshit
Bruh, we're at 0.1 hr (6min) increments. And I'm happy enough about it because they do good work and don't waste time. Remember you are paying a professional to deal with arbitrary issues.
anon_
1mo ago
Hospitals have a perverse incentive to "upcode" your bill, that is to put down a code for a higher tier/cost, of treatment that you received. This is illegal, but it happens with shocking regularity.
There is also the converse problem -- I am friendly with a lot of doctors and they are all beyond frustrated that they will get an appointment for visit A and patients will expect them to also cover B,C,D and E. This is especially bad at the level of preventative visits turning into issue visits".
They have different approaches. Some will bill higher codes if patients want to talk about something outside the scope. Others will ask them to come back (or do a Telehealth followup). Sometimes they'll just eat it if the patient is quick about it. None of them have an objection to doing those visits, it's just that they aren't reflected in their scheduling or billing.
I expect upcoding is more of a problem than scope-creep, but I wanted to mention it because the symmetry is there.
anon_
1mo ago
Boom is reasonably likely (2:1 odds) to get commercialized supersonic passenger transport by 2040. I think that will seem like a mere evolutionary change (plane go faster) but, if it succeeds and scales, will be transformative.
anon_
1mo ago
Dirigism with retarded characteristics.
[ With sincere apologies to Deng Xiaoping ]
anon_
1mo ago
You're thinking too much in terms of the general election. In an election where a politician gets 100% of the votes, the process (primary/party otherwise) by which they were selected is the real election.
It's not a stable equilibrium point.
anon_
1mo ago
Plus you get a bunch of loonies in Congress because the district is so far off center that the primary is the larger hurdle.
anon_
1mo ago
Packing enough minorities into a district minimizes Dem representation overall.
Have you read DARPA grant applications? I remember (in 2005) PIs filing all kinds of "we will use micro-scale flux capacitors to create a mobile platform capable of detecting chemical and biological weapons so as to ensure American victory in the GWOT".
anon_
1mo ago
I'm not really talking about national politics, I'm talking about the petty intradepartmental stuff. Or maybe it's just "all politics is local" again.
Moreover, they can't care about it because the people that do care have infinite time to devote to political games.
anon_
1mo ago
Yeah, the kind of person whose opinion matters is only the kind of person with political stature.
anon_
1mo ago
Writing some boilerplate doesn't require politics. It's indicative of someone whose political stance is to recite whatever those who care about politics care about in order to do esoteric math.
anon_
1mo ago
Wholeheartedly agree, but I think this is a lot harder than you imagine.
Without being interested or engaged in politics, he needs to select an avatar that understands it keenly. That's both a principle/agent problem and a
The reason DEI was able to spiral is because the spiral did not affect the academics’ social status, but actually increased it.
Which is downstream of the fact that DEI advocates were the kinds of people that were interested in things like department/university politics.
anon_
1mo ago
as it motivates normal academics to police their extremist colleagues, rather than acquiescing again
Ah, but in doing so you changes the very nature of the person in question. Serious academics like TT aren't interested in the prior step of acquire enough institutional power to be able to police their extremist colleagues as they have better things to do like discover new math. The person interested in university politics just isn't the same person.
Of course, you do see serious academics that have taken up the task of working university politics. Whether out of duty or necessity or simply inertia. And every single time I've seen it (and to be fair, I wasn't in academics that long, I bailed on it for private industry), it fundamentally changed how they related to the world.
anon_
1mo ago
How much of this is attributable to the extremely low startup cost of an AI project? Having someone spin up a few Claude instances and seeing if that works can be surprisingly cheap.
Previous technologies have required far more initial investment, so this might just be “everyone can have $10K tokens to try whatever you want if you can write a half cogent proposal”.
anon_
1mo ago
This kind of nitpicking desire for pedantic precision is at odds with speaking plainly. Otherwise every possible statement has to be qualified with a bunch of extra drivel.
- No responsible adult would violate a custody order outside of vanishingly rare situations that are inconsequential to the claim that it is impossible to infer anything about kidnappings from crime statistics.
This seems far less plain nor does it add much information to my ear that wouldn't be covered by a plain reading.
anon_
1mo ago
Sure, there is some outlier case that is possible. That exceptional case is both extremely rare and inconsequential to the point.
anon_
1mo ago
If you want people to write plainly, you ought to read plainly too.
Moreover, it's not false (let alone obviously false), any more than any statement that has an exception, no matter how non central & inconsequential, is false. Applying this level of pedantic precision requires also rejecting as false the statement that "smoking causes cancer" because it not every smoker gets cancer or "summers are hotter than winters" because one July was January. Or if you want an SSC example, to object to "criminals harm society" by pointing out that MLK was a criminal.
If you want to consider this a "retraction" rather than "a clarification that in most polite conversation it would be considered peevish of a listener to insist upon" that's fine. But it's probably among the least enjoyable aspects of discussion on the internet when readers do that.
anon_
1mo ago
Do you think those cases are even remotely representative?
Granted they exist, they are the exception that proves the rule applies to the rest of cases.
anon_
1mo ago
Sure. Some people get away with getting into a shootout with the police. But very few do, and the kind of people that think they will win in a shootout with the cops are the last people that you should encourage to do so.
The stories of people that successfully jump the border with their kids are like man bites dog.
anon_
1mo ago
Even responsible adults can panic! That doesn't mean they aren't generally sufficiently responsible to care for a child.
It doesn't mean that in the sense of being sufficient, but surely it's at least a few bits of information in that direction.
Again: only if it doesn't work out for you. Which it often won't! But there are literally times when your choice is "break the law now, and it will be bad, or don't break the law now, and it will be worse."
Well, if it often won't work out then, on the balance we ought to advise people against it.
The police are not invincible
Sure, but I still wouldn't advise anyone about to be caught with a few grams of drugs to escalate it into a shootout with the police. Sure, some fraction of people that do so get away with it (that is, agreeing the police are not invincible) but on the median
- The odds are extremely bad
- The kind of person at the time is going to severely misapply the odds
- Unless you're already about to charged with murder, you're gonna make it much worse than just eating the drug charge
the courts are not infallible, the law is not incontestable
Of course not. But the fallible courts have fairly-reliable armed men that, if you decide to contest their possible-mistakes via physical force, will enforce them against you.
This isn't a normative statement.
Oh, I have. The interesting thing is that they are pissed they get insurance consults on patients they want to send to surgery, but they freely admit that there are some of their colleagues (and it's a "everyone knows who it is" kind of thing) that propose surgery for literally anyone that comes through the door.
Can't have nice things ...
More options
Context Copy link