Yes. Pretty sure if you shot a 90 year old in hospice care you’d still get charged with murder and it would get counted as a gun death.
I’m assuming the positive takes on this guy are sarcasm.
Nearly all of our income comes from billing patients and agreements with insurance companies, not from the hospital, although I don’t know the percentage off hand. It’s very low typically unless you work in an area with a poor payer mix.
So basically, the money is coming out of our groups bottom line. Spew at someone else
I’m not spewing, I’m asking a sincere question. In the other thread you implied that in the case of the nurse practicioner, the $38 that the patient was billed went directly to the nurse. what you’re saying here implies that no, it doesn’t go to the nurse, it goes to whoever she works for and then they pay her.
you give out vague and incomplete info and then you also get mad at people who don’t read your mind and know exactly how the system works.
Wow that sucks, sorry. Seems like I got really lucky, I used them for over a year with no problems and then noticed more comfortable N95s available locally cheaper, and stopped using BonaFide.
I’m sorry I’m unable to explain the entirety of ER billing to you in a few paragraphs. There’s wild variations in how that part of the payment goes down. You can badger someone else for every little detail.
In my example I work for a group that most of us are part owners in. The money for that 1.5x is coming from our company.
If the pandemic gathers speed, we can all rely on our governments to respond with rational, science led approaches
Nailed it (yes I know he was being sarcastic)
2 Likes
Because patients were overcharged before?
I mean, if your company continued paying 1.5x would it eventually go broke without hiking patient charges?
Guess pvn wasn’t content fighting CN in just one thread.
Anyway, it seems the Czech strategy of doing nothing is going to be the plan for the foreseeable future. A lot of talk but nothing new is happening. Granted, it’s better than what we had under Babis most of the time but there seems to be no clear endgame in sight.
In better news, there is a hypothetical chance that a Czech woman will go to prison for up to eight years for spreading vaccine misinformation
Last year when people were just starting to get vaccinated she claimed that it was killing people. Some places temporarily stopped vaccinating people in care homes which led to deaths. Since it happened during a state of emergency, she ended up breaking temporary laws that were set during that time. So she could indeed be imprisoned for this.
Her response to this was to announce her run for president. I guess she sees that as her only path to immunity since she’s guilty as sin. Doubt she’ll be in prison. Probably fined another amount that she’ll refuse to pay and misinformation will continue to spread unabated.
Effin bats
Effin humans imo
The nuance you are missing is this is not a take. And, if it were a take, it’s not the guy presenting the numbers’ take - it what the FOI to the gubberment reported.
Cn said:
Bolded is blantantly wrong
ONS figures show…
Quite simple really.
The government reported that from their figures, the Office of National Statistics figues, numbers equating to 10% of the deaths had no underlying conditions, the other 90% of deaths did have underlying conditions - regardless of what killed them.
You must remeber we have 91% of eligible people with a least 1 vax so the UK doesn’t need to dumb shit down on the off-chance foreign anti-vaxxers can’t read a simple question.
1 Like
Here’s a fun thought exercise. If I hopped in my DeLorean right now and went back in time to mid-March 2020 and announced to Unstuck that:
- N95’s proved to be extremely effective at protecting you from catching covid, and they’d be widely available by late summer/early fall of 2020.
- It turned out smear transmission was not a significant source of spread.
- TWO vaccines with 94% efficacy would be pretty widely available in Q1 2021.
How long would it take the celebration to stop, and then how shocked would everyone be when I said…
-
The US will peak at a 7DMA of about 65K cases in summer 2020, then 250-300K cases in January 2021, then 800K cases in January 2022.
-
A not insignificant number of right wingers will choose to eat horse paste and drink their own urine instead of getting vaccinated.
2 Likes
90% of people who die from covid have underlying health risks != 90% of covid deaths are actually from other things.
It’s still covid killing them. To say otherwise is conspiracy theory garbage.
And the underlying message of all of this, “Only people with health risks have much risk of dying from covid, so it’s no big deal!” talk is that we should just stop worrying about COVID.
It ignores the reality that a huge percentage of people are high risk. In the US the estimate is about 40% to 60% depending on who all you include. It’s probably a little lower in the UK because of less obesity, I think the rate there is maybe 10% lower.
The other thing is a lot of young people who have one health risk still consider themselves healthy and don’t really think of themselves that way, and thus don’t consider themselves at high risk of covid.
So it’s very dangerous and disingenuous messaging.
1 Like
Yes, I get it. But that wasn’t the question the FOI asked. It asked for the number that died without underlyers.
If I place an FOI to the Office of National Statistics asking ‘how many buses were late in the month of Jan’, I’m expecting an answer with numbers rather than loads of lines stating ‘but it was snowing at the time’
I think the right wingers had shown their true colors enough that #5 wouldn’t have been the biggest shock. I think would’ve all said “yeah that sounds about right”.
1 Like
That’s fine, the issue is not that the data exists. The data should exist.
The issue is how people choose to present it and talk about it, and what points they attempt to extrapolate out to make.
It’s very useful to say, “Hey, if you’re over this age, this weight, or have one of these conditions you should be aware that you’re very high risk. This applies to XX% of our population.”
It’s very damaging to say, “Hey, this is kind of overblown, 90% of the people dying have serious health problems. Healthy people are doing just fine!”
Anyone who has been a regular in this thread the last two years should be aware of this and should be aware that the vast majority of the people saying the second thing are either:
- Pushing anti-mask/anti-precaution rhetoric.
- Pushing anti-vaxx rhetoric.
- Being duped by #1 or #2.
Thus anybody using that “this is overblown,” type of rhetoric or anything adjacent to it or similar to it, should be understood to be in group #1 or #2 and their content should not be pushed out to others, lest the person pushing the content out also join group #1 or #2.
And if you found a way to use the data to extrapolate out some sort of weird climate denial point about the frequency of snow causing bus delays, you’d be a climate denier.
Numbers are just numbers, but people can use them to mislead by adding misleading context, even if the underlying numbers are accurate.
3 Likes