Re: PA needs help passing Lyme legislation

From: derdrittemann (derdrittemann2003_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/23/04 

Date: 23 Nov 2004 13:05:01 -0800

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411230621.7835d698@posting.google.com>...
>
> "OK it appears that I was wrong on that point too (in that I agreed
> with Greg saying it was a metaphor).
>
> But what, pray tell, is a simile"?

Better question, perhaps, is what is the difference between a simile
and an analogy...I dunno. They are both comparisons.

A metaphor is when a symbol is used to convey meaning...not..."the man
is like a bear"..."but the man AS a bear". It is badly misused...to
the point where no one understands the distinction anymore.

Here is an example of a metaphor:

"And then Managed Care betrayed the Burrascano and condemned him and
conveyed him in front of Pilate where he stood accused".

See, Pontius Pilate is a metaphor for the OPMC...and the real power of
the metaphor is the conveyed message about the nature of "the
Burrascano".

Unfortunately...many in Lymeland seem unable to grasp that this is NOT
a literal meaning.
 
> "Whether or not the ostensible trigger for them being targeted by law
> enforcement was valid, it was true that they were involved in
> organized crime in a big time way".

Sez you. Al wuz a biznissman. It was a bumrap. Da fix was in...all da
way on dat wun.
> >
> > Are you sure about this? I am having a hard time believing that the
> > OPMC has the authority to interpret the tax code and make findings on
> > that basis.
>
> "Improper monitoring of patients, failure to keep adequate medical
> records in terms of documenting diagnosis and treatment plan, failing
> to respond to patient emergencies, that kind of thing all within the
> ambit of their power".

Yes...but what I am wondering about here is the ability of the
investigating authority to go through the records...and, in essence,
figure and calculate the tax owing on a business...very complicated...

...but a simple review of the books will show the income...and if any
is witheld...and that is a different matter. If you are hiding, or
attempting to hide income...that is a willful act. Bunda.
>
>> "I'm not aware that there was evidence of financial misdeeds in
Orens
> or Burrascano. I think that ultimately the Natole case was presented
> as, in essence, fraud, but the fraud was based on what was considered
> overtreatment."

Trafficking in ivs? Yes, see, the treatment issues can easily be
linked to the financial ones.

> "Which points to a weakness of the proposed legislation. They can call
> it something else and still prosecute it. What protects the doctors is
> NOT the words of the law but convincing people that the approach is
> valid, changing their minds not the parameters of the law".

Yes. But the real reason that legislation is being attempted in the
first place is because the proponents are trying to protect LLMDs from
disciplinary action solely becasue of their status as LLMDs...because
they believe the motivation for the actions was because the accused
were treating Lyme.

While politically...realistically...that may be why the charges were
brought...it is not the legal standard on which they are ajudicated.
The ethics board is concerned with the accused's behavior within a set
of legal parameters.

So...the legislation is driven, to some extent, by an unrealsitic
assumption...a false view of the situation.

>
> > If, on the other hand, it became obvious that someone was engaged in
> > an attempt to under-report or conceal substantial amounts of
> > income...then that would probably get their ticket punched...and it
> > probably should.
>
> "I'm not sure if you are speaking in terms of the analogy or not here"?

Well, yes...I am. That is really my point in addressing this.
>
> > --"ie, sloppiness in filing and record-keeping and other,
> > > far more serious issues (if they can be found) that have nothing to do
> > > with Lyme",
> >
> > Well, I suppose...but the issue is professional responsibility,
> > here...and when you say "have nothing to do with Lyme"...keep in mind
> > that it is YOUR perception that the hearings had to do with Lyme.
>
> "Yes it is greg's perception. And greg is very naively buying into the
> fact that the panels claimed that the convictions weren't on the basis
> of Lyme treatment. Which is exactly what they wanted people to think.
> Yeah it wasn't about Lyme treatment, it was just that the medical care
> was lousy. Uh huh, sure".

Well...this is getting kind of philosophical...but what I am saying is
that BOTH perceptions could be true at some level.

The political reality can be that, yes, it was very politically
motivated...

...but if the facts exist...say, for not reporting "incentives" that
should be considered income...then the accused is nailed on a basis,
technically, other than his overtreatment of Lyme...and really, not
Lyme-related.

> > Yes. See, despite all the internet talk...it is extremely difficult to
> > "get someone" for not following evidence-based guidelines when their
> > empirical observations tell them that the patient is responding to
> > continued treatment.

> > "...disciplinary boards have attempted to find these doctors guilty
> > of "not paying taxes" instead".
> >
> > That's a fairly serious charge. Is that just your personal
> > conclusion...your opinion?...or are you in possession of evidence to
> > show this? You are saying that since they couldn't "get them"...they
> > "got them" on what they could?

What I am trying to address here (and I'm not at all sure this was
what was intended)...is the perception that the OPMC was "stacked"...a
biased forum and that the conclusion was pre-determined.
>
 Wud if some of dese guys wuz da Capones uv da IV rackets?
>
> "Yes, if that is the point, I agree. They've not only failed to avoid
> the appearance of impropriety but a few of them have been exactly what
> they were said to be.
>
> Caught taking kickbacks.
>
> And worse".

Yeah...see, there actually was a point to all this. But I am just
asking people to consider the mere possibility."Pirates of the
Rocephin Seas"...complete with warm, tropical off-shore Carribbean
accounts...or so I hear...

...at the time, there was just a flurry of "action alerts" and
fund-raising...there was NEVER any question of whether "our" doctors
were maybe not the saints everyone AUTOMATICALLY assumed them to be. I
remember one guy who questioned it on one board...got furiously
rebuked by the moderator...never posted again.

All LLMDs go to heaven.
>
> > Hey...I'm sure we have all heard stories...
> >
> > I don't know, myself.
>
> "I know for a fact that this is true, that more than one were caught
> red handed. Which is a shame not for them because they deserve what
> they get, but for the others who were doing what they thought was
> right in the best way they could., And a shame for the patients who
> were made to suffer as a result".

I really am just trying to understand here and ask questions...as I
was pretty much "out of it" back then...but am also handicapped in
that I never have had an iv...so I don't understand what all is
involved...even though my diagnosis was on the basis of CNS
infection...(and hopefully, that will answer Greg's question about me
not understanding about managed care)...and I am not "out east"...not,
at ground zero...the frontlines...

The other day over at Lymenut...someone asked about a billing problem
from her LLMD for "sensitization to Rocephin" and iv treatment.

I won't tell you the amount...but you can find the thread by inserting
the figure "$52,000" in the search engine there.

I am beginning to understand, I think.

Another one complained about having her debit card automatically used
to pay the bill...leaving her with virtually no funds to live on.

What is also interesting is that Lou B., the owner, came onto the
thread to ask that these sort of issues not be publicly aired as they
might be utilized by "trolls".

Since I have referred to it, now...guess that makes me a "troll"...but
why does talking about the situation...examining BOTH sides...looking
for the TRUTH...make you a "troll"?

(A rhetorical question).