Stillwater Mayor

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
They mean well and they think they are doing the right thing. So much so that if you challenge them their God complex will kick in...Granted NOT all doctors are like this, but they are indeed indoctrinated in American Healthcare and how it works and how it's science is the supreme human "god," but it's not really the "science" that is their god, but the profit and esteem behind their "science." Once again there are good people in many / most cases and they are attempting to help people...they just have a built in bias and the very system itself is built to maintain it (I.e profit). So no, it's not a vast conspiracy but a result of American Medicine and it's profit bias.

Btw, I said there is an overreaching issue and problem and you brought it back down to a TINY specific. This is unrelated to what I stated and in no way does it even begin to answer the argument I made.

Back to the virus...I would think that perhaps the head man in charge (Dr. Fauci) perhaps ought to resign OR explain so many questions about his investments in certain international labs, pharma companies, and his personal profit motive regarding vaccine development. Maybe, that would put people more at ease regarding his recommendations. Btw, he's personal net worth is perhaps as much as $500 million...not a billionaire but certainly able to be put in ones pocket for the right protections of his healthcare related wealth and interest. I'd personally rather have someone with less financial bias involved in setting national healthcare policy.
I didn't make it a tiny specific, you did. You said hospitals were pushing c-sections. For a couple thousand bucks they risk multi-million dollar lawsuits. Makes no sense.

Maybe if you're wrong about that you're wrong about other things that you can't back up.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
I didn't make it a tiny specific, you did. You said hospitals were pushing c-sections. For a couple thousand bucks they risk multi-million dollar lawsuits. Makes no sense.

Maybe if you're wrong about that you're wrong about other things that you can't back up.
Actually that was another poster and I think he made a pretty good argument.
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
21,174
9,414
1,743
Earth
THEY steer patients... but not a conspiracy.

Greed, you mean like wanting to keep what you earn and the government not taking it?
It's not a conspiracy, but they would love to get the things that give the most profit in line with what is deemed best to use... No it's not a conspiracy when bodies like the AMA or the CDC says its the best and you defer to them...this is why its so important that they not be corrupted by biases. I have question as to if they are or not...every American should have those same questions with something as important as our healthcare. We are currently making our drugs in the enemy camp and have a guy leading our efforts who may or may not be heavily invested in those drugs being made in enemy camp (CCP) AND in their labs...how the hell did that happen???...you don't think it had anything to do with profit motive over science!

I'm in agreement that taxes are overboard...and overall I think the profit motive can be a great thing, but when we don't have any oversight for so long and allow the situation with China to happen...I have my doubts that our oversight has been even close to adequate. So bad that it's resulted in what I would say is treason.
 
Last edited:

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,344
2,273
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
Nice job blackballing her...that's very interesting...you can buy a book claiming that a Dog is God but you can't buy this alternative view of this virus...that's actually pretty telling. Freedom says that we need to give even crackpots a voice, it's dangerous when we start banning books because we don't like their content. I guess Amazon isn't the only place one can buy a book, but it tells you something about the narrative amazon wants to push might not align with her's.
The video about her is still up here: http://argnetworks.com/dr-anthony-f...PJ01Zw0MPBDIg6DC2m-ybzyLjgSUMlZvdk1fNInNP-h6o

Another side of her story is here:
Integrity issue follows fired researcher

Paper linking chronic fatigue syndrome to a virus suffers another blow as duplicate figures surface.
https://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.574.html
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,576
4,173
743
50
Hospitals push c sections because they are scheduled and controlled and the longer stay for the woman gives them more money.
So, you think it's a conspiracy? Hospitals tell OB-GYNs do more c-sections or else? Or else what?
But after having a ton of kids with my wife and 2 VBAC's, I can tell you that there is less risk with VBAC's. Putting a woman's body through a 2nd or 3rd major surgery for the sake of convenience of the hospital is stupid. And our last o.b. not only agreed, but he said that the most recent gatherings of o.b.'s nationally had started to agree it wasn't worth the surgical risk.
Yeah, reading the actual ACOG guidelines, I'm not sure it's that simple.

https://journals.lww.com/greenjourn...Bulletin_No__184__Vaginal_Birth_After.48.aspx

Who are candidates for a trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery?

The preponderance of evidence suggests that most women with one previous cesarean delivery with a low-transverse incision are candidates for and should be counseled about and offered TOLAC. Conversely, those at high risk of uterine rupture (eg, those with a previous classical or T-incision, prior uterine rupture, or extensive transfundal uterine surgery) and those in whom vaginal delivery is otherwise contraindicated (eg, those with placenta previa) are not generally candidates for planned TOLAC. However, individual circumstances must be considered in all cases. For example, if a patient who may not otherwise be a candidate for TOLAC presents in advanced labor, the patient and her obstetrician or other obstetric care provider may judge it best to proceed with TOLAC.

Good candidates for planned TOLAC are those women in whom the balance of risks (as low as possible) and chances of success (as high as possible) are acceptable to the patient and obstetrician or other obstetric care provider. However, the balance of risks and benefits appropriate for one patient may be unacceptable for another. Delivery decisions made during the first pregnancy after a cesarean delivery will likely affect plans in future pregnancies. For example, maternal morbidity increases with increasing number of cesareans, and a dose–response relationship has been documented between placenta accreta and number of prior cesareans, especially in the setting of placenta previa (34). Therefore, decisions regarding TOLAC should ideally consider the possibility of future pregnancies.

Although there is no universally agreed upon discriminatory point, evidence suggests that women with at least a 60–70% likelihood of achieving a VBAC who attempt TOLAC experience the same or less maternal morbidity than women who have an elective repeat cesarean delivery (68, 69). Conversely, women who have a lower than 60% probability of achieving a VBAC who attempt TOLAC are more likely to experience morbidity than women who have an elective repeat cesarean delivery (69). Similarly, because neonatal morbidity is higher in the setting of a failed TOLAC than in VBAC, women with higher chances of achieving VBAC have lower risks of neonatal morbidity. For example, one study demonstrated that composite neonatal morbidity was similar between women who attempted TOLAC and women who had an elective repeat cesarean delivery if the probability of achieving VBAC was 70% or greater (69). However, a predicted success rate of less than 70% is not a contraindication to TOLAC. The decision to attempt TOLAC is a preference-sensitive decision, and eliciting patient values and preferences is a key element of counseling.

More Than One Previous Cesarean Delivery
Studies addressing the risks and benefits of TOLAC in women with more than one cesarean delivery have reported a risk of uterine rupture between 0.9% and 3.7%, but have not reached consistent conclusions regarding how this risk compares with women with only one prior uterine incision (6, 70–73). Two large studies with sufficient size to control for confounding variables reported on the risks for women with two previous cesarean deliveries undergoing TOLAC (72, 74). One study found no increased risk of uterine rupture (0.9% versus 0.7%) in women with one versus multiple prior cesarean deliveries (72), whereas the other noted a risk of uterine rupture that increased from 0.9% to 1.8% in women with one versus two prior cesarean deliveries (74). Both studies reported some increased risk in morbidity among women with more than one prior cesarean delivery, although the absolute magnitude of the difference in these risks was small (eg, 2.1% versus 3.2% composite major morbidity in one study) (74). Additionally, retrospective cohort data have suggested that the likelihood of achieving VBAC appears to be similar for women with one previous cesarean delivery and women with more than one previous cesarean delivery. Given the overall data, it is reasonable to consider women with two previous low-transverse cesarean deliveries to be candidates for TOLAC and to counsel them based on the combination of other factors that affect their probability of achieving a successful VBAC. Similar to that of women with one cesarean, the calculated predicted probability of a VBAC can be obtained using a web-based calculator that has been validated in women with two previous cesarean deliveries (75). Data regarding the risk for women attempting TOLAC with more than two previous cesarean deliveries are limited (76).
Hospitals do like Stillwater has. There are too be NO VBAC'S. They do not allow it. That's their control. It doesn't matter if the Dr. and patient agree that it would be fine and of less risk. Thus the need for us and many other parents have to go to OKC, or Enid to have babies without surgery unless necessary.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Hospitals do like Stillwater has. There are too be NO VBAC'S. They do not allow it. That's their control. It doesn't matter if the Dr. and patient agree that it would be fine and of less risk. Thus the need for us and many other parents have to go to OKC, or Enid to have babies without surgery unless necessary.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
It's a conspiracy to get those extra $2-4k.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,576
4,173
743
50
Hospitals do like Stillwater has. There are too be NO VBAC'S. They do not allow it. That's their control. It doesn't matter if the Dr. and patient agree that it would be fine and of less risk. Thus the need for us and many other parents have to go to OKC, or Enid to have babies without surgery unless necessary.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
It's a conspiracy to get those extra $2-4k.
Add that up, plus you have all the extras they tack on to a bill where someone has had surgery vs a natural birth. Pain meds included. Whether you used them or not. They charge you for things in bills that you never used or saw. That kind of thing has been happening a long time. Surgery just increases the number of those things they can charge you for.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Add that up, plus you have all the extras they tack on to a bill where someone has had surgery vs a natural birth. Pain meds included. Whether you used them or not. They charge you for things in bills that you never used or saw. That kind of thing has been happening a long time. Surgery just increases the number of those things they can charge you for.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
That study took that into account. In the case of Medicaid, that is what Medicaid will pay. There is no way to pad the bill, because Medicaid simply won't pay it. That's it, they get an extra couple of grand, and then you have a Medicaid patient that's looking to win the malpractice lottery if something goes wrong. Hospitals are risk-averse.

You guys are greatly inflating in your minds what hospitals make off the procedure. Giving birth is in itself a procedure. You take up a suite. Use of the room is the biggest charge. The hospital makes nothing off the surgeon/OB-GYN, anesthesiologist, radiology, etc. All those services bill separately.

If there is a conspiracy it is one to keep the risk of malpractice low, not to inflate billings. The hospital makes more money by avoiding OB malpractice suits.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
I asked the question about the c-section conspiracy in a Facebook forum. Dr. McMurry is an OB nurse and head of the nursing department at OCCC. This is her response:
1589098854534.png

She is absolutely correct that nurses would blab.

Dr. Harris-Fletcher is an OB-GYN specialist, and an OSU-Med alum. I hope she comments. When she does I will post it here.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
74,659
52,239
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
This is a conversation between my brother the gooner and myself in the same thread.

RxBro: for the death certificates, not a conspiracy as much as the way it’s coded. I don’t believe a physician would say they suspect unless they do. That doesn’t change the fact the criteria is different. Suspected is not confirmed. It is just a different way of collecting data. Every clinician who has to code things this way for billing will tell you it’s like unknotting spaghetti. Most will tell you also after “ I think I coded correctly”. A test is defined, coding not much. If you think coding in a hospital or Clinic is clear, go see the medical records department of any of them. Heck go to the large stack of charts waiting to be signed and coded. Two totally different things between outright fraud and miscoding...unless your an auditor I guess. Again there is no way you cannot argue in calculated the range (suspected) by definition may not be in the domain (confirmed by lab). It may be the best we have but seems mathematically flawed.

RxCowboy: Don't get paid unless you code right and the chart supports the code.

RxBro: No you get paid but audited at some point. Then they take back money if it’s not right.

RxCowboy: That's worse.

Putting COVID-19 on a death certificate in order to get the extra-$13k is fraud and exposes the hospital and the physician to action by insurance companies and HHS. On audit, there has to be information in the chart to support the diagnosis, and these charts will eventually be audited. I know that if you are a believer in conspiracies then you're not going to believe this, either, and thus I will not convince you. But this is a fact. I've had my own charts audited in the clinic. Fortunately, I carefully document my encounters and so they support all the codes I use. I've had discussions with coders about how to code charts to get paid equivalent to what it is that I actually do, but I have never been told to use a code simply to get more money when the chart didn't support use of that code. IOW, I've never been asked to commit fraud.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,344
2,273
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
10 days into Stillwater opening back up and we have 4 cases in Payne county and one in Stillwater according to the state website. Also only one death. I think that happened before the opening.
I think the numbers will stay down as more college students leave town, if social distancing is practiced in bars and restaurants, and if the virus can stay out of nursing homes.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,576
4,173
743
50
SPS has announced they will move graduation to pioneer stadium.

https://twitter.com/onwardpioneers/status/1260387607416057864?s=19


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Dec 18, 2019
95
42
18
40
Central Oklahoma
I couldn’t figure why they just didn’t schedule the graduation for the football field in the first place. How many thousands can you seat on the field and still be spaced out? It’s outdoors. Transmission of disease is extremely low in the first place. Something tells me the mayor was still throwing a hissy fit and not wanting to allow it.