|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: If HR4411 does pass, will you continue to play online when/if ways around the law prevail? | |||
| Yes |
   
|
40 | 78.43% |
| No |
  
|
11 | 21.57% |
| Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#111
04-13-2007, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference. [/ QUOTE ] Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong. If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case. chez [/ QUOTE ] I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way). This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated. but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative. More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect. [/ QUOTE ] I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less. I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum. chez [/ QUOTE ] You'd argue it or you'd assert it? Just asking, not taking a jab. If you can argue it I'll make the thread. [/ QUOTE ] That's a fair jab and I'd argue for it. But its not something I can demonstrate but would argue that you can't demonstrate your point of view is more correct. I'd also produce some hopefully impressive gesticulatory arguments for my view. chez [/ QUOTE ] Trust me, I'd be thrilled to be convinced that fudging charts and orders is actually in the best interests of everyone. I'm subject to the same emotional pulls as everyone else, and my patient sitting right in front of me is more important to me than some nameless douchebag three states over. 
|
|
#112
04-13-2007, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference. [/ QUOTE ] Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong. If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case. chez [/ QUOTE ] I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way). This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated. but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative. More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect. [/ QUOTE ] I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less. I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum. chez [/ QUOTE ] You'd argue it or you'd assert it? Just asking, not taking a jab. If you can argue it I'll make the thread. [/ QUOTE ] That's a fair jab and I'd argue for it. But its not something I can demonstrate but would argue that you can't demonstrate your point of view is more correct. I'd also produce some hopefully impressive gesticulatory arguments for my view. chez [/ QUOTE ] Trust me, I'd be thrilled to be convinced that fudging charts and orders is actually in the best interests of everyone. I'm subject to the same emotional pulls as everyone else, and my patient sitting right in front of me is more important to me than some nameless douchebag three states over. [/ QUOTE ] If I can't convince you that some lies are good then I'm not going to convince you here. I'm not arguing that its better if people do things they believe are wrong, but that its may be better for there to be a significant level of minor fraud committed by people who believe its the right thing to do. (It may also be optimum to have a certain level of straightforward criminality.) chez
|
|
#113
04-13-2007, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference. [/ QUOTE ] Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong. If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case. chez [/ QUOTE ] I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way). This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated. but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative. More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect. [/ QUOTE ] I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less. I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum. chez [/ QUOTE ] You'd argue it or you'd assert it? Just asking, not taking a jab. If you can argue it I'll make the thread. [/ QUOTE ] That's a fair jab and I'd argue for it. But its not something I can demonstrate but would argue that you can't demonstrate your point of view is more correct. I'd also produce some hopefully impressive gesticulatory arguments for my view. chez [/ QUOTE ] Trust me, I'd be thrilled to be convinced that fudging charts and orders is actually in the best interests of everyone. I'm subject to the same emotional pulls as everyone else, and my patient sitting right in front of me is more important to me than some nameless douchebag three states over. [/ QUOTE ] If I can't convince you that some lies are good then I'm not going to convince you here. I'm not arguing that its better if people do things they believe are wrong, but that its may be better for there to be a significant level of minor fraud committed by people who believe its the right thing to do. (It may also be optimum to have a certain level of straightforward criminality.) chez [/ QUOTE ] Just curious, but do you actually mean 'optimum?' To use a poker analogy, there is often more than one +EV line, but there is only one optimal play. You really think the OPTIMAL strategy is some amount of straightforward criminality, or is this just a 'local maximum,' to abuse yet another statistical term.
|
|
#115
04-14-2007, 12:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Just curious, [/ QUOTE ] You're arguing with a Brit. Would you like me to translate? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Nope, I'm good. I follow chez just fine. Its those damn Aussies (Midge) I have a problem understanding.
|
|
#116
04-14-2007, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] By the way, do any of you guys see a fundamental difference from scenario 2 and the doctors who fudge insurance forms or hospital orders to get their patients the treatments they need? I imagine most doctors would find them significantly different, but to me is just seems a matter of magnitude, no fundamental difference. [/ QUOTE ] Depends what you mean by fundemental. Fraud (possibly minor fraud) is generally considered signifiantly different to murder even if we agree they are wrong. If you're suggesting that the fraud means other people are denied treatment then I think that is not the case. chez [/ QUOTE ] I think fraud does mean that, that other people are denied treatment, because we are dealing with a finite resource pool. At the very least, allow my assertion that it is the same for the purpose of a hypothetical. Lets say its zero sum, and every resource you use to help someone is a resource you are stealing from someone else. Is it more like scenario 1 or 2? I suppose its more like 1, since it is the fraudulent billing or allocation that is saving the lives of your five patients, with the inevitable harm to the other patient (actually, its probably helping one and hurting 5, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way). This is probably a different enough scenario that it would be a thread hijack, maybe I'll start another thread on it at some point. Probably not. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree its zero sum and I think there's a decent chance that this type of fraud in the system increases the number of people treated. but its a dull economic argument not a dull philosophical one [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] It may be dull, but I think you need to be open to the alternative. More fraud --> Higher health care costs --> Fewer people afford it --> Fewer covered I can't prove it and I doubt any of us have the data to support either way quantitatively, but the logic suggests that there must be an effect. [/ QUOTE ] I am open to it but there's the competing reductuion in costs caused by more treatment and absolutely no reason to believe they are equal and opposite. I think there's a good economic argument (capitalism 101) that the net result is more treatment not less. I'd also argue that outside vhawk's ideal world (and in the real messy world) a significant amount of minor fraud may be optimum. chez [/ QUOTE ] You'd argue it or you'd assert it? Just asking, not taking a jab. If you can argue it I'll make the thread. [/ QUOTE ] That's a fair jab and I'd argue for it. But its not something I can demonstrate but would argue that you can't demonstrate your point of view is more correct. I'd also produce some hopefully impressive gesticulatory arguments for my view. chez [/ QUOTE ] Trust me, I'd be thrilled to be convinced that fudging charts and orders is actually in the best interests of everyone. I'm subject to the same emotional pulls as everyone else, and my patient sitting right in front of me is more important to me than some nameless douchebag three states over. [/ QUOTE ] If I can't convince you that some lies are good then I'm not going to convince you here. I'm not arguing that its better if people do things they believe are wrong, but that its may be better for there to be a significant level of minor fraud committed by people who believe its the right thing to do. (It may also be optimum to have a certain level of straightforward criminality.) chez [/ QUOTE ] Just curious, but do you actually mean 'optimum?' To use a poker analogy, there is often more than one +EV line, but there is only one optimal play. You really think the OPTIMAL strategy is some amount of straightforward criminality, or is this just a 'local maximum,' to abuse yet another statistical term. [/ QUOTE ] Its a bit vague but suppose we have some shared concept of a perfect system and it is the case that all possible real world system are imperfect. Then by saying some criminality may be optimal I mean that it may be that the possible real world systems nearest to perfection include some criminality. It has to be vague because the concepts of 'nearest' is vague. chez
|
|
#117
04-14-2007, 12:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
Nope, I'm good. I follow chez just fine. [/ QUOTE ] Really? Please translate the following: [[[[ "Its a bit vague but suppose we have some shared concept of a perfect system and it is the case that all possible real wolld system are imperfect. ... Then by saying some criminality may be optimal I mean that it may be that the possible real world systems nearest to perfection include some criminality. ... It has to be vague because the concepts of 'nearest' is vague. ... ]]]]]] If you can do so -- you are a far greater mind than I ...
|
|
#118
04-14-2007, 01:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Nope, I'm good. I follow chez just fine. [/ QUOTE ] Really? Please translate the following: [[[[ "Its a bit vague but suppose we have some shared concept of a perfect system and it is the case that all possible real wolld system are imperfect. ... Then by saying some criminality may be optimal I mean that it may be that the possible real world systems nearest to perfection include some criminality. ... It has to be vague because the concepts of 'nearest' is vague. ... ]]]]]] If you can do so -- you are a far greater mind than I ... [/ QUOTE ] 'wolld' should have been 'world'. Sorry for any confusion. chez
|
|
#120
04-14-2007, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 'wolld' should have been 'world'. Sorry for any confusion. [/ QUOTE ] Yep, that cleared it up. Thanks. [and they call me silly....] [/ QUOTE ] Your welcome. Why would anyone call you silly? chez
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
