It sounds to me like you're suggesting that insurance companies which are already denying claims based on underlying cause of injury (birth defect is covered but development isn't) won't adapt their policies to be more specific in which ICD-10's are denied with changeover.
In my opinion they will abuse the system as best they can, and we'll try to figure out ways around their loopholes and exceptions, but I don't doubt it'll be harder under the new coding system.

As I stated in another reply to you, I noted that you were not clear in your initials sweeping statements, and so I wanted to be very clear to anyone reading the thread that ICD-9/ICD-10 codes and billing/payment are very much reliant upon each other. Also that with Worker's Compensation claims (and sometimes no-fault) the E codes are often required by specific companies.

You were unclear in your statement, and not specific that you were speaking of the cause of injury. I think most people reading your statement would interpret it as I did, that you were indicating that ICD codes have nothing to do with insurance billing.

Also when looking at worker's compensation and no-fault claims you'll find that cause of injury is often given great scrutiny by the adjuster when deciding upon whether to pay outright or to force a hearing.

Private insurance policies in New York and Texas will deny based on the ICD-9 billed. This is usually due to specific limitations and exclusions in the policy. Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy all have this problem. For instance for Speech Therapy many Aetna policies will deny 315.32 (mixed expressive receptive language disorder) or 307.0 (stuttering) because it isn't an acceptable ICD-9 under their updated policies (which mainly, state that Speech Therapy is covered but only in the case of accident, injury or gross anatomical birth defect) but have no problem paying 784.59 (Other Speech Disturbance). Choosing the correct ICD-9 code out of the various diagnosis the therapist gives you, as well as knowing which one to bill primary or to not include so that a patient can receive covered care is very important in a clinical office setting. Though this is always done with the assent of the Therapist to make sure the diagnosis does apply to the patient.

Actually, this completely incorrect. Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Cigna, Humana, United Healthcare, and Unicare all base denials around injury codes.

Insurance billing has a lot to do with injury coding. Often the only way to get an insurance company to pay on a claim is to resubmit under an alternate ICD-9 code.

So you're saying that for instance: Archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, anthropology, geophysics, meteorology, oceanography, astrophysics, geophysics, paleontology, and paleobotany, are not sciences?

I think perhaps you may be the one who is mistaken in your definition.

So you'd rather they just give the TV stations tax breaks? Because if you don't go with the obvious method of funding, that and many more obfuscated methods will be used.

And your response to me could be summed up with a single phrase,"I think Guardian is lying or mistaken."

You are a really long winded person you know that?

Not really.

Everything that you said is negated by telling the person you gave the password to, that it is a temporary password. As in, it will be changed.

Wikileaks: Here's a password to use, it's temporary.

So a gun analogy would be more like JD from Heathers:
  Alright, these are Ich Luge bullets. My grandfather snared a shitload of them back in WW II. They're like tranquillizers, only they break the surface of the skin, enough to cause a little blood, but no real damage.

You obviously don't know many MUD admins.

Naw, I was feeling snarky and felt like rolling around in the mud.

I'm not suggesting that paper isn't a nasty, wasteful process that is dangerous to the environment, nor am I in any way ignorant of the impact of the publishing industry and the paper and pulp industry.

However I am suggesting that if you did some research into the environmental impact of electronics manufacturing and disposal you'd discover that it is an equally nasty and wasteful process. And it is this that I believe you are ignorant of.

Examples being the production of integrated circuits, semiconductors, printed circuit boards, and printed wiring assemblies. All release hazardous gases, effluents, use up amazing amounts of water and energy for an item several hundred times their size and use a large number of hazardous chemicals.

This does not even consider the environmental cost of getting the raw materials used in electronics out of the ground and processed even before they go into the manufacturing process.

I'm not even asking you to care, just to be aware.