Aetna evicore spine neurosurgeon told me last week that my patient with moderate stenosis at L4 and L5 with vertebral body edema and 50% height loss should have a lami and fusion instead of the kyphoplasty that we tried getting prior auth on. Apparently in our MAC if you have moderate or greater stenosis at a level of a compression fracture they will not approve the vertebral augmentation.
We know he did it so the question is irrelevant. He shouldn’t be living the easy life
not to be cynical, but since when have you cared about people who live below the poverty line?
Uh huh, I’m sure if one were to compare our bank statements, it’d show two completely different approaches to helping the poor. I believe it’s my personal responsibility to help them. OTOH, you think it’s the responsibility of those who make more than you through government taxation. Definitely different philosophies for sure
ips-dc.org
“Instead we give to the federal government, which efficiently and equitably redistributes and otherwise deploys the funds in the most effective manner to serve those in need, free of discrimination, to cure all social ills whilst ensuring no improper mismanagement occurs.”1. you make a lot more than i do.
2. you assume that those that make more give out of the goodness of their heart, when that is rarely true. maybe it is for you
3. regardless of how much money someone gives to charity, much of that money goes to pad the wallets of those running the charities, and that charity most commonly is directed to reach a very selected portion of the population, not everyone.
heres an interesting article while zooming through internet:
The True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy - Institute for Policy Studies
New analysis details how the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
You think the feds are better stewards of our money than the actual charities, assuming you go with well known reputable charities with strong track records. Duct now you’re just playing dumb1. you make a lot more than i do.
2. you assume that those that make more give out of the goodness of their heart, when that is rarely true. maybe it is for you
3. regardless of how much money someone gives to charity, much of that money goes to pad the wallets of those running the charities, and that charity most commonly is directed to reach a very selected portion of the population, not everyone.
heres an interesting article while zooming through internet:
The True Cost of Billionaire Philanthropy - Institute for Policy Studies
New analysis details how the ultra-wealthy use charitable giving to avoid taxes and exert influence, while ordinary taxpayers foot the bill.
It is naive to think charity can replace a basic social safety net for the poor. There would be incredible gaps. Charities cannot reach that scale.
I believe in good stewardship of one’s money and especially of others money. You ever read Thomas Sowell? Our government has not been doing this in the least as evidenced by what’s been uncovered lately. I’m fine with safety nets as long as they don’t include billions in waste, fraud and abuse. That’s the point.
almost all charities have concerns. all of them will siphon away some money to pay for their executives. individual charities also will only support their independent causes, meaning that certain groups of americans do not have access to their work.
its perfectly appropriate to clean up waste, fraud and abuse. that why there are inspector generals (that trump fired) and congressional committees.
