Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Your situation isn't a matter of a free market, it's a matter of contract law applied to the servicer (your insurance) and the client (your employer assuming you have a group plan through them). That price you want is dictated by your doctor's contract with your insurance company, so even if the service isn't covered you sometimes still get the benefit of an insurance discount. As such, your physician probably doesn't know what it's going to cost you until the insurance company denies the claim because they don't always adjudicate claims the same way for the same service. Most insurance contract also mandate that the physician must file the claim even if the service is known to be non-covered so they have a complete medical file on you for actuarial purposes. If your doctor was greedy he'd just charge you his master fee for the procedure, but you might get an insurance discount and then he'd have to give you a refund (or just keep it as many do).

 

One way around that is for you as the patient to exercise your HIPAA rights and file a Requirement of Non-Disclosure form with your doctor for the service. Doing so overrides the insurance contract and ensures that no claim goes to the insurance, but also means you lose any shot at the discount and have to pay the full rate at the time of service. You can see why something like that would be important in Behavioral Health and other sticky situations. Here's a brief on the process:  http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hipaa/co...osure-rule

 

Long story short: as long as someone else is paying there isn't a free market.

This is exactly why paying cash is better. Insurance steals your information and sells it, even if they don't pay. Luckily the EMARs are still so disconnected that big brother has to do some work if he wants the whole story, but it won't stay that way forever.

Quote:I like how the republican healthcare solution now is to encourage subsistence farming.
In America. In 2017. With the other option being "don't be poor."


You people are unconscionable.

No, Republicans would like you to be as dependant as Democrats do, they just want you to buy from stores rather than use vouchers. Farming is what smart people do who see the system isn't near as stable as claimed. Nothing to do with politics.

Quote:Well the industrial farming system we have currently is depleting all our soils of their nutrients and making it unusable. Phosphorous is running out, and many of our current fertilizer kills soil and takes far more water than natural. The nutritional density of our veggies is down big time compared to 50 years ago.

 

I think what you're calling a farming system is more like widespread bad practices/techniques and probably more prevelant in some developing countries rather than here.


If I made my soil unusable then I'd quickly be out of a job. So that is definitely not part of our "farming system" out this way. I can't speak for other places but all of the stuff you're talking about is very carefully tracked and monitored in the Central Valley, and I'd wager we're probably the most industrialized agricultural region in the world.

Quote:How does this relate to your argument that poor people can only afford to eat garbage? There's a difference between basic balanced nutrition and dieting.

we were talking about healthier foods...healthier foods are more expensive just as I said...and I didn't say they could only afford to eat garbage, I said make healthier foods cheaper and more people would buy them...I didn't say anything about basic diet and nutrition, I said healthier foods, organics, fat free low sodium low carb low or no sugar added foods...I also said people budget their food expense and buy cheaper foods rather than buy the expensive healthier foods,

Quote:To me that's a bit far. Starvation is the end result of eating nothing, bad food still has caloric value.

 

But really, wrong_box could live on eggs, beans, vegetables, bread and water for $20 a week and be perfectly fine, he just doesn't want to. And it's ok to not want to, just don't mischaracterize it as "can't."

Bull [BLEEP] I'm diabetic I can't live like that...why not just promote living on frozen pizza and ramen noodles? your example would not give enough food to make up the caloric intake a grown person needs, not to mention a family...

Quote:You don't need "all natural, organic" anything, it's a marketing ploy to convince you to spend more money. Low fat is bad for you as is low carb and low sodium, the body needs the right balance of each to be healthy. Added sugar I agree is a problem, but your produce section is full of foods that have only natural sugars. Wanna be healthy and save money? Beans, eggs, vegetables, bread, and water every day.

never said NEED I said if healty(IER)foods were cheaper more people would buy them...Low fat  low carb  low sodium high protein is the diet diabetics and people with high blood pressure have to eat...I'll listen to my Dr for diet advice thanks very much

Quote:I gave you the list, care to disagree?

sure! If you have diabetes you have to have a certain caloric intake, a certain intake of carbohydrates, a certain amount of sodium and protein fats and sugars...

 

many foods can give you that, but you have to count everything you eat and calculate...most people dont have to do that they just grab some meat. cook it throw in some potatoes and a veggie and call that eating healthy and while it looks like it's a well balanced meal, it's really not...

Quote:sure! If you have diabetes you have to have a certain caloric intake, a certain intake of carbohydrates, a certain amount of sodium and protein fats and sugars...

 

many foods can give you that, but you have to count everything you eat and calculate...most people dont have to do that they just grab some meat. cook it throw in some potatoes and a veggie and call that eating healthy and while it looks like it's a well balanced meal, it's really not...

 

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here? In order to eat the prescribed diet for DM you can certainly live on what I stated and do it on the cheap. You're overstating the costs of eating a healthy diet.

Quote:never said NEED I said if healty(IER)foods were cheaper more people would buy them...Low fat  low carb  low sodium high protein is the diet diabetics and people with high blood pressure have to eat...I'll listen to my Dr for diet advice thanks very much

 

Those foods are cheap now and people don't buy them, because of convenience not cost.

Quote:Bull [BAD WORD REMOVED] I'm diabetic I can't live like that...why not just promote living on frozen pizza and ramen noodles? your example would not give enough food to make up the caloric intake a grown person needs, not to mention a family...

 

Ok, this is clearly more about your wants than your needs. I get that, but it's the exact problem we have with this whole conversation. You can't be convinced so the point is moot.

Quote:Your situation isn't a matter of a free market, it's a matter of contract law applied to the servicer (your insurance) and the client (your employer assuming you have a group plan through them). That price you want is dictated by your doctor's contract with your insurance company, so even if the service isn't covered you sometimes still get the benefit of an insurance discount. As such, your physician probably doesn't know what it's going to cost you until the insurance company denies the claim because they don't always adjudicate claims the same way for the same service. Most insurance contract also mandate that the physician must file the claim even if the service is known to be non-covered so they have a complete medical file on you for actuarial purposes. If your doctor was greedy he'd just charge you his master fee for the procedure, but you might get an insurance discount and then he'd have to give you a refund (or just keep it as many do).

 

One way around that is for you as the patient to exercise your HIPAA rights and file a Requirement of Non-Disclosure form with your doctor for the service. Doing so overrides the insurance contract and ensures that no claim goes to the insurance, but also means you lose any shot at the discount and have to pay the full rate at the time of service. You can see why something like that would be important in Behavioral Health and other sticky situations. Here's a brief on the process:  http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/hipaa/co...osure-rule

 

Long story short: as long as someone else is paying there isn't a free market.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I asked for the procedure cost.. the doctor's office wasn't able to tell me how much they would charge me, i.e. a walk off the street price. Why would they be unable to tell me a 'list' price for a procedure? I really don't care about the disclosure, I just want the cost.

Quote:Maybe I wasn't clear. I asked for the procedure cost.. the doctor's office wasn't able to tell me how much they would charge me, i.e. a walk off the street price. Why would they be unable to tell me a 'list' price for a procedure? I really don't care about the disclosure, I just want the cost.

Maybe I wasn't clear, they aren't sure.

Quote:Ok, this is clearly more about your wants than your needs. I get that, but it's the exact problem we have with this whole conversation. You can't be convinced so the point is moot.

 

He needs the things he wants. You're not making sense.

Quote:He needs the things he wants. You're not making sense.

 

He needs foods suitable for diabetics. Sugar free, low carb. A can of veggies off the shelf at Walmart fits that need. So does a steak from Publix. He doesn't need "organically grown" versions of those foods, that's just a want.

Quote:I think what you're calling a farming system is more like widespread bad practices/techniques and probably more prevelant in some developing countries rather than here.


If I made my soil unusable then I'd quickly be out of a job. So that is definitely not part of our "farming system" out this way. I can't speak for other places but all of the stuff you're talking about is very carefully tracked and monitored in the Central Valley, and I'd wager we're probably the most industrialized agricultural region in the world.

"Using USDA data, he found that broccoli, for example, had 130 mg of calcium in 1950. Today, that number is only 48 mg. What's going on? Davis believes it's due to the farming industry's desire to grow bigger vegetables faster. The very things that speed growth — selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers — decrease produce's ability to synthesize nutrients or absorb them from the soil.

 

"A different story is playing out with organic produce. "By avoiding synthetic fertilizers, organic farmers put more stress on plants, and when plants experience stress, they protect themselves by producing phytochemicals," explains Alyson Mitchell, PhD, a professor of nutrition science at the University of California, Davis. Her 10-year study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organic tomatoes can have as much as 30 percent more phytochemicals than conventional ones."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37396355/ns/he...NsFQqK1tPY

 

"Soil erosion from farmland threatens the productivity of agricultural fields and causes a number of problems elsewhere in the environment. An average of 10 times as much soil erodes from American agricultural fields as is replaced by natural soil formation processes. Because it takes up to 300 years for 1 inch of agricultural topsoil to form, soil that is lost is essentially irreplaceable." http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides...grw85.aspx

 

"Over the past 50 years, the negative effects of soil erosion on farm productivity have been masked by improved technology and increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides. Ironically, many of these measures used to increase the short-term productivity of American farms are also causing excessive erosion, which threatens productivity over the long term."

 

"Even when soil erosion is not excessive, intensive agriculture can impair soil quality by depleting the natural supplies of trace elements and organic matter. In natural ecosystems, soil fertility is maintained by the diverse contributions and recycling of nutrients by a wide range of plant and animal species. When this diversity is replaced by a single species grown year after year, some trace elements are depleted if not replaced by fertilization. The organic content of the soil also diminishes unless crop residues or other organic materials are supplied in sufficient quantities to replace that consumed over time." http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides...grw85.aspx

 

So nutritional density is going down, top soil is being depleted at rates 10 times faster than it can be remade and fertilizer with mono-cultures is destroying the soil that's left. And all of that is here, in the US. I am in no way an 'environmentalist' but the problem is fairly obvious.

You probably don't engage in these practices (I hope), but there is no doubt that a majority do (although that's certainly changing/will change).

 

Actually rereading your comment, I don't think we actually disagree on anything other than whether this is occurring in US.

 

 

Edit: didn't like a source so I removed quote.

Quote:I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here? In order to eat the prescribed diet for DM you can certainly live on what I stated and do it on the cheap. You're overstating the costs of eating a healthy diet.

I think your estimate of 20 dollars a week is low. But for 50 dollars a week, I do think one person could eat healthy if they made their own food. You will certainly spend at least 50 a week at McD if you eat there every day for every meal (even on dollar menu).

Quote:"Using USDA data, he found that broccoli, for example, had 130 mg of calcium in 1950. Today, that number is only 48 mg. What's going on? Davis believes it's due to the farming industry's desire to grow bigger vegetables faster. The very things that speed growth — selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers — decrease produce's ability to synthesize nutrients or absorb them from the soil.

 

"A different story is playing out with organic produce. "By avoiding synthetic fertilizers, organic farmers put more stress on plants, and when plants experience stress, they protect themselves by producing phytochemicals," explains Alyson Mitchell, PhD, a professor of nutrition science at the University of California, Davis. Her 10-year study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organic tomatoes can have as much as 30 percent more phytochemicals than conventional ones."
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37396355/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/nutritional-value-fruits-veggies-dwindling/#.WNsFQqK1tPY'>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37396355/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/t/nutritional-value-fruits-veggies-dwindling/#.WNsFQqK1tPY</a>

 

"Soil erosion from farmland threatens the productivity of agricultural fields and causes a number of problems elsewhere in the environment. An average of 10 times as much soil erodes from American agricultural fields as is replaced by natural soil formation processes. Because it takes up to 300 years for 1 inch of agricultural topsoil to form, soil that is lost is essentially irreplaceable." <a class="bbc_url" href='http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/mod-ag-grw85.aspx'>http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/mod-ag-grw85.aspx</a>

 

"Over the past 50 years, the negative effects of soil erosion on farm productivity have been masked by improved technology and increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides. Ironically, many of these measures used to increase the short-term productivity of American farms are also causing excessive erosion, which threatens productivity over the long term."

 

"Even when soil erosion is not excessive, intensive agriculture can impair soil quality by depleting the natural supplies of trace elements and organic matter. In natural ecosystems, soil fertility is maintained by the diverse contributions and recycling of nutrients by a wide range of plant and animal species. When this diversity is replaced by a single species grown year after year, some trace elements are depleted if not replaced by fertilization. The organic content of the soil also diminishes unless crop residues or other organic materials are supplied in sufficient quantities to replace that consumed over time." <a class="bbc_url" href='http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/mod-ag-grw85.aspx'>http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/mod-ag-grw85.aspx</a>

 

So nutritional density is going down, top soil is being depleted at rates 10 times faster than it can be remade and fertilizer with mono-cultures is destroying the soil that's left. And all of that is here, in the US. I am in no way an 'environmentalist' but the problem is fairly obvious.

You probably don't engage in these practices (I hope), but there is no doubt that a majority do (although that's certainly changing/will change).

 

Actually rereading your comment, I don't think we actually disagree on anything other than whether this is occurring in US.

 

 

Edit: didn't like a source so I removed quote.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you fully understand what you're reading - or you're trying to move the goalpost on me.


Soil Erosion is the process of topsoil being physically carried away by either wind or flood irrigation. That's not what you were talking about when you said the farming system is making soil unusable, current fertilizers kill soil (anathema to any farmer), and take far more water. I'm not even sure how a fertilizer can take water.


Those are completely different issues. I can explain better for you if you like because the Cornell article you're citing is about 30 years out of date and I also don't think you're understanding that out of date data correctly.


Can you explain what you mean by a fertilizer with mono-cultures, and how exactly that is destroying the soil?


It kinda seems like your reading/misinterpreting the scary parts and ignoring the solutions to them, such as your bolded paragraph.

Quote:He needs the things he wants. You're not making sense.

I need a car. Either a Ferrari or a Kia will do but I want the Ferrari.

Quote:With all due respect, I'm not sure you fully understand what you're reading - or you're trying to move the goalpost on me.


Soil Erosion is the process of topsoil being physically carried away by either wind or flood irrigation. That's not what you were talking about when you said the farming system is making soil unusable, current fertilizers kill soil (anathema to any farmer), and take far more water. I'm not even sure how a fertilizer can take water.


Those are completely different issues. I can explain better for you if you like because the Cornell article you're citing is about 30 years out of date and I also don't think you're understanding that out of date data correctly.


Can you explain what you mean by a fertilizer with mono-cultures, and how exactly that is destroying the soil?


It kinda seems like your reading/misinterpreting the scary parts and ignoring the solutions to them, such as your bolded paragraph.

Do all fertilizer's kill soil? I think I made a rookie mistake a few tears ago. I used to buy mushroom compost and mix it into my garden beds. Well two years ago I filled one bed with straight mushroom compost. My peppers did great but nothing else seems to last in there?

Quote:Do all fertilizer's kill soil? I think I made a rookie mistake a few tears ago. I used to buy mushroom compost and mix it into my garden beds. Well two years ago I filled one bed with straight mushroom compost. My peppers did great but nothing else seems to last in there?

Eric,


I'd have to see the analysis of the potting soil to give you a specific answer but I can hazard some general ones. You may have a few issues:


The purpose of potting soil is to provide more nutrients to your garden soil and some aeration to the delicate feeder roots. If you use 100% potting soil you're upsetting the intended balance. The first and most immediate problem is too much air around the roots, which will kill a plants straight away.


Secondly, you didn't kill any soil, you probably made it too "hot" to use farmer parlance. Plants grow optimally in a fairly broad spectrum of 30-ish nutrients as well as soil Ph and texture. You should see the ph of the potting soil somewhere on the bag, which will tell you if it's intended to raise or lower you're existing soil. Generally you want it right around 7 (neutral), and it only takes getting to about 5.5 or 8.2 to start screwing with the plants ability to grow.


The next issue is probably the macros. That's the NPK analysis or the little code on the bag that says 7-7-7 or 16-0-8. That's telling you how much Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium your adding. It's telling you how many lbs of each macronutrient you're getting per 100lbs of the fertilizer. That should also be generally mated to your soil and plants and by using only the potting soil you're probably outside of the acceptable high range of one or all of the macros - in other words you're too "hot".


Tl/dr: mix some regular soil back in and you'll be fine.