home

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:04:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Stage 17 of the Tour de France is being contested in the French Alps and features 6 mountain climbs. While most of the attention is on the battle for the yellow jersey, where Alberto Contador will be attacked by Andy Schleck's team Saxo Bank, a lot of attention will be focused on Lanterne Rouge "leader" Kenny Van Hummel. Can he survive 6 mountain climbs?

Here is more on the Lanterne Rouge Tradition.

This is an Open Thread.

< Medical Marijuana Activists Defeat Proposal for Dispensary Quotas | Kyl Reverses Himself On Evaluating Judicial Appointments >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 193 comments (193 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I found these two items at (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:30:55 AM EST
    Think Progress to be an interesting juxtaposition (emphasis in the original):

    The Washington Post reports that the health insurance industry's "effort to defend its turf has led it to cherry-pick the facts." For instance, the insurer's chief lobbyist, Karen Ignagni, is constantly citing a poll to claim that Americans don't want reform. But the poll actually shows Americans want a public health insurance option.

    Immediately below is this item:

    Using a Bush administration argument, the Obama White House "has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul." CREW asked about visits from 18 executives, but the Secret Service replied that the documents "were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws."

    It's not like he's prohibited from disclosing this information, it's that he's choosing to invoke the presidential records exemption and refusing to disclose it.  Is this the same president who, as a candidate, promised to have C-SPAN cameras recording the whole reform process?

    Transparency: power seems to turn it opaque.

    This is one hell of a fight (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:47:22 AM EST
    It reminds me of watching my spouse mock-up old battles for study, but this is happening in real time. I read around everyday on it and everyday there is some new attack from the status quo that is almost always falsified information, yet everyday someone shows up to fight back and doing it well.  And I'm still very disappointed in our new President.  He would sell me out in a minute if the constant fighting mad as hell pressure wasn't on.  Will we ever get to have any semblance of a "normal" life under his presidency? So much to fix but we all have to show up every single day fighting mad before anything is done?  The Lobbyists get paid every single day, can we write this down as seeking work so we won't have to forfeit our unemployment while we fight to stay alive?

    Parent
    It's very discouraging, Tracy, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    on so many levels.  There is, as ever I guess, so much disinformation and distortion on this issue of reform and the health care system - it still just boggles my mind that even when some 70+ percent of people have said they want some kind of universal/single-payer system, all we can get out of the Dems in Congress, which is being parroted by the media, is "no can do - politically infeasible."  We want it, but they don't, so that's that.  Better we should come up with a this-might-be-better-than-nothing plan, so as not to upset the insurance industry/Big Pharma/AMA cash carts that trundle their way daily into Congressional offices.  I mean, really - who cares what the little people want?

    I just wish I could get over the feeling that Obama all of a sudden realized that he was not going to win on this issue just by decreeing that it should be so, and he's shifted into what has worked for him before: full campaign mode.  He's fighting for the win, for "elements" and not understanding that how these elements are put together makes a difference in what the end product is.  The key elements of a cake are flour, eggs, salt, butter, sugar, baking powder and baking soda - but it does not follow that as long as I have all of those ingredients in a bowl, in any proportion, that what comes out of the oven will be a cake, or will even be edible.  How does he not get that basic truth?

    I don't feel any better about Obama's closed-door meetings with the health industry honchos than I did about Cheney's secret meetings with energy industry execs - it's worse, actually, because he sold himself as the one who would bring transparency back to the process - he railed about Cheney's energy meetings.

    Really frosts my cupcakes.

    Parent

    Obama may have railed about (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    Cheney's energy meetings, but IIRC in the end Obama voted for Cheney's so called energy bill.

    My question is will Obama fight for a real public option that can compete in the open market and have a chance of forcing the insurance industry to provide affordable coverage or does he just want something that is labeled a public option?

    Dems might want to consider that playing games with health care may be disastrous to their long term political health. Passing a bad health care reform package that is extremely expensive and that does not provide real benefits to middle class Americans would be worse than passing nothing at all.

    Parent

    You'll love this: (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    NYT re lobbyists--if you can't say anything nice, . . .

    Parent
    This is actually something that (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    I've been wondering about, how long can the lobbyists' funds hold out in an economy that most of the corporations helped to blow up and literally destroy?  Lobbyist money is starting to dry up.  As it should.  A lot of lobbyists did all they could to prevent needed oversight in every industry, and they worked very hard to stunt healthy competition, all to their own detriment.  If they thought their funding this year was looking a little dried up they haven't seen anything yet!  One of our candidates may have to actually rely on some voter donations to campaign on.  Wouldn't it be a lovely thing see?

    Parent
    When the Democrats first talked about (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    a public option it was going to be accessible for anyone who wanted to participate. The insurance industry said it didn't want to have to compete against a real public option. Lo and behold, Congress modified the public option into a severely restricted plan that had no ability to compete with the industry. I wonder why.

    Parent
    Interesting, I wish Think Progress (none / 0) (#181)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    would go beyond juxtaposition and take the bolder step of connecting the dots between these types of related news items.

    Parent
    About that 'socialized' Cdn health care (none / 0) (#189)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:57:06 PM EST
    A couple of years ago, a Canadian friend of mine was in the process of moving from Ontario to California. Two days before she was scheduled to leave home, she woke up one morning and felt an egg-sized lump in her left breast. Of course, there was considerable concern that she was about to leave Canada for the US where she would have no health insurance.

    Here's what happened within the next 24 hours, while I accompanied her: 1) She was immediately scheduled and examined by her GP that same morning. 2) She was immediately referred to a hospital and thoroughly examined by a leading oncologist (breast cancer specialist) that very afternoon. 3) She was given a needle biopsy; 4) a mammogram; 5) and an ultrasound. Diagnosis: benign, fluid-filled cyst that would spontaneously resolve. There was no delay in her travel plans and she got on her flight to California, the next day, as planned.

    My fortunate friend was covered by OHIP: Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Cost to her for the 24 hour whirlwind, involving ALL of the foregoing doctors, hospital visits, tests, and procedures: $ZERO.

    I'm not saying every Canadian health care experience goes that swimmingly, but those health care professionals made damn sure that no patient of theirs was going to be delivered into the land of the uninsured without a clean bill of health. I'll take that - please.

    Parent

    I am especially appalled (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:05:38 AM EST
    by republican legislators who are physicians telling outright lies.  Tom Price of Georgia wrote in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Obama will "outlaw" your current coverage, and all your medical decisions will come from Washington. It is pretty sad when doctors are more concerned with insurance company profits than with human life. Of course these lies pale in comparison to the whoppers being spewed by rush, beck, ect.

    All of our medical decisions are now made (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    by insurance company bureaucrats through denying coverage. That little piece of information somehow always gets underreported.  

    Parent
    Medical Decisions (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    Currently the insurance companies decide what to cover - and they count on people changing jobs and providers so they are not planning for cost-effective over the long haul but cost-effective today.
    Portability will help this some because insurers will have to start thinking about health/costs over a lifetime as opposed to immediate profits. But pre-existing mandates will counteract because who wants a new client with massive high costs?

    If the gov't is setting the standard they are more likely to actually care about lifetime costs, preventive medicine and national fitness/health.

    In addition, as evidence-based practice gets more used (science instead of hyperbole) I expect costs to go down as doctors get more effective and less dependent on what the drug companies advertise.

    My sister gave birth in the swedish system, I have Canadian friends very happy with their general care, and I think the French system is a great model. So I guess gov't planning doesn't mean bad healthcare but gives the opportunity to be a better system.

    Parent

    So you would rather change (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:23:55 AM EST
    to government making the decision for you?

    Parent
    Compared to what we know (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:25:58 AM EST
    about insurance company practices, I don't understand why this prospect is supposed to be so terrifying.

    Parent
    Then that's the difference betwen (none / 0) (#19)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:30:52 AM EST
    you and me.

    I trust private industry more then the government.

    I also know I can change my insurer.  I can't change who the government hires to administer my care through some government system.

    To me that's a huge difference.

    Parent

    It's the fundamental difference (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    between most Democrats and Republicans.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    you'd rather put your life or death decisions in the hands of someone who stands to gain by denying you.  

    Kay.  Whatever.

    Remember, typically when they deny you, it's over something serious and you're really, really sick and can't fight anyway.

    And you can't "always change insurers".  Often the choices are limited, and change means much higher premiums.  And, insurers collude (at least informally) on what they'll deny.

    Parent

    Makes you wish there was a way... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    you could do it without private insurers and the government...I have a hard time telling 'em apart, people who worked for the government end up lobbying for the insurers, insurers hand money to candidates in big piles...the old facism thing, the merger of their power...any old way you slice it Joe and Jane Blow get he short end...the way of the world I guess.  If you're poor, working, or lower middle...you just can't afford to get sick.

    Parent
    It's the opposite... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    ...in our office.  Most people worked for the private side and then came to work for the government.  Not a one is an advocate for the private side, but rather are dedicated, fierce defenders of consumer rights.  

    Dude, you seriously have to stop pigeon holing government workers.  

    Parent

    I had high level excutive types... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:25:12 AM EST
    in mind, but you're right my brother, I'm stereotyping...old habits die hard.

    The hardworking low level people are only as good as the govt. or corporate policy allows them to be, whichever the case may be.

    Parent

    Our Commissioner... (none / 0) (#116)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    ...a Republican even, is one of the most fierce defenders of consumers and advocate of making companies do the right thing that I've ever come across.  

    Parent
    That's cool... (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    we might need him as a private consumer advocate if we end up going socialized.

    Parent
    I haven't heard anything (none / 0) (#64)
    by DXP on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:06:13 AM EST
    about health insurance changing to not for (wall street) profit. Didn't the health insurance industry used to be run as not for profit? Seems an option to me, but it must be a bad one since the arguments seem to form along the lines of either corporate for (wall street) profit insurance or government insurance.

    Parent
    Even not for profits... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    work for profit...be it in the form of salary or skimming.  I don't think that is the answer...not enough saints like Mother Teresa in this country to staff a not for profit system...people wanna get paid for the work they do and I don't blame them.

    I'd like to cut the insurance industry out alltogether and have patients deal with providers...cutting them out reduces health care costs, but not enough to make care affordable.  

    It's a toughie allright...

    Parent

    Yes, the employees of insurance (none / 0) (#127)
    by DXP on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    get paid. But not for profit would keep competition, and the existing structures in place. It would change profit to being for the company and not for wall street, where parties not involved in health care profit off of health decisions it has no real interest in. If all insurance were not for profit it would ease fiascoes like AIG, and Katrina. I must be missing something....

    Parent
    Not for profit... (none / 0) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    ...does not mean that they aren't out to make money.  You can read up on Kaiser here in Colorado and why the state went after them for excess profits.  Profits that they were trying to ship back to the parent company in California--to the determent of the consumers in this state who were paying for coverage.  

     

    Parent

    Premera Blue Cross (none / 0) (#133)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    calls themselves "not for profit". They pay very competitively for employees and provide decent benefits. They are also grossly over-staffed and wasteful.

    State Farm Ins is also "not for profit". Or, at least it was when I had my home and auto insurance through them.

    On the profitable years, I would get a check from State Farm that represented my share of the profits.  Premera Blue Cross shares their profits by giving bonus checks of substantial amounts to their exempt employees. They don't give it back to the subscribers, they don't increase the payout to the providers, and they don't reduce premiums...they were clearly charging too much or they wouldn't have found themselves with millions in profits.

    I don't trust "not for profit".  

    Parent

    Government programs such as (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    Medicare and Medicare are not in the business to make a profit. That is what I was referring to as non profit agencies. Probably a bad choice of words.

    Parent
    I understood that (none / 0) (#161)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:32:11 PM EST
    MO Blue - I like the Medicare system, and they are not scamming the "not for profit" world the way these private insurance companies are. It would be smart to expand Medicare to congressional members so they can see for themselves how it works. Then, maybe in the near future, they will feel comfortable giving it to everyone.


    Parent
    Quicker way might be to have them (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    pay for their own insurance and have to deal with the same problems we do when we get sick. A lot of them have preexisting conditions, let them be denied coverage or have their premiums skyrocket every year because members of their group have been or are ill.

    Parent
    But, (none / 0) (#140)
    by DXP on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    If insurance companies were changed to a 'not for (wall street) profit' wouldn't they be regulated as such? Certainly certain NGOs give their top execs good salaries but don't work for wall street profits. I wonder if some insurance companies merely call themselves not for profit, but still operate within the for profit regulations and are still publicly traded? Really not sure about this...

    Parent
    "Not for profit"... (none / 0) (#145)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    I notice quite a few of my state senators are tied to "not for profit" community organizations and such, and usually a couple hundred large ends up in somebodys private bank account.

    I used to think health care and energy were too important to leave to the "for profit" corporations to provide, then I started to wonder if they are too important to leave for "non profits".  No matter what you do, fighting greed and/or corruption is an uphill battle.

    Slado is getting beat up on today, but I think he's right to say we should be cautious that the cure isn't worse than the disease...our government is famous for that move.  I'll be damned if I know what the cure is...like a lot of things, the more I hear and read about it the more confused I get.

    Parent

    The fact is... (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    somewhere around 22,000 uninsured Americans die each year from lack of health care.  

    In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured. Since then,
    the number of uninsured has grown. Based on the IOM's methodology and subsequent Census Bureau estimates of insurance coverage, 137,000 people died from 2000 through 2006 because they lacked health insurance, including 22,000 people in 2006.

    Much subsequent research has continued to confirm the link between insurance and mortality risk described by IOM. In fact, subsequent studies and analysis suggest that, if anything, the IOM methodology may underestimate the number of deaths that result from a lack of insurance coverage.  

    More broadly, these estimates should be viewed as reasonable indicators of the general magnitude of excess mortality that
    results from lack of insurance, not as precise "body counts." The true number of deaths resulting from uninsurance may be somewhat higher or lower than the estimates in this paper, but that number is surely significant.

    Adjusting for population, that means on average one Coloradan dies from lack of coverage each day.  That's twice our homicide rate.  

    We, as a nation, have been having this debate since Truman was in office.  There comes a time when action needs to be taken.  

    Parent

    But what action? (none / 0) (#156)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    Contrary to the cliche, I think doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing...look at the people who we hired to take action...it scares me sh*tless.

    I don't doubt those estimates...I just don't know if the fix won't leave us with just as much tragedy.

    Parent

    what about (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    providing a public option.  You can choose for yourself if you wanna get $crewed by the gov't or $crewed by the private industry.  Right now there is only one choice.

    Parent
    Great information, MileH (none / 0) (#162)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    But, people don't die from lack of insurance. They die from lack of medical care.

    If I get sick in the near term, I will die from lack of care. I have good private insurance. I can't afford the co-pays, the deductible, and the 20% share.

    This is what divides us from the healthcare availability of other countries. Private, supplemental insurance is available to anyone who feels they need to have access to healthcare at a higher level than what the gov't provides. But, healthcare is available to all.

    Parent

    If I get sick in the near term, I will die (none / 0) (#164)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    If I get sick in the near term, I will die from lack of care. I have good private insurance. I can't afford the co-pays, the deductible, and the 20% share.
    Only if you want to die.

    Hospitals will take bill your insurance and work out the rest with you. There are charitable organizations that would love to help you. Etc., etc.

    I certainly hope you don't get sick, but if you did you would not die from a lack of health care unless dying is what you want.

    Parent

    Don't think that's universal (none / 0) (#168)
    by DXP on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    I've been repeatedly denied since breaking a bone and losing health insurance. Only option I can get is thru an uninsured pool - its extremely expensive and I cannot afford it.

    Parent
    Explain (none / 0) (#169)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:30:22 PM EST
    I don't see how your comment relates at all to mine.

    Parent
    Well, DXP, again you confuse me (none / 0) (#171)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    PBC is a not for profit. They are not publicly traded. There must be some way around the regulations, if they exist, because they do it.

    Parent
    Sorry Inspector (none / 0) (#178)
    by DXP on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    I read too fast and didn't see you were talking about medicare. Yes, you are right, there must be a way around regulations - if they do exist.

    Parent
    At least if the government denies your claim (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:29:31 AM EST
    you can call your Congressman. Indeed, Medicare disputes are often solved by a call from a Congressional office.

      But who are you going to call about Blue Cross?

    Parent

    Your state's Insurance Commissioner. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:39:37 AM EST
    Or your state representative.  

    No much different than on a Federal level.  Most claim disputes are resolved with a call to the DOI (either through the consumer complaint or the formal UR review process) and most changes to existing law start with a complaint to your local elected representatives.  

    Parent

    YOUR STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    Was elected to monitor the activities of the insurance providers in your state. That's who you call about Blue Cross.

    I actively use the people who have been elected to serve us when I need to. It works, and they find out through communications and requests from the voting public just what kinds of problems people are having to deal with.

    Parent

    That is of course, (none / 0) (#119)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    after you exhaust the appeals process available by simply calling the number on the back of your member ID card, or by writing to some specific address.

    Parent
    Not true. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    Exhaustion of the appeals process is not prerequisite to filing a complaint with the DOI.  

    The consumer always retains the right to file a grievence with the proper regulatory authority.  

    Parent

    Yes, the consumer can go the DOI anytime (none / 0) (#125)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:49:17 AM EST
    my point was that there is generally a process that can be used.  The implication was there wasn't.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:36:33 AM EST
    You think that's better then hiring a lawyer.

    If your insurance companies denies coverage (legitimate coverage) you can sue.

    Do you think a congressman will have time to wade through all the complaints if we go to a public system?

    Parent

    How many Americans (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    can afford the additional cost of hiring a lawyer to dispute their claims?

    Parent
    You don't always need a lawyer (none / 0) (#50)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    I'm reviewing Level Two UR appeals for a very large HMO right now and the only case that wasn't overturned on appeal is one that was filed by an attorney.  The rest, filed by your average Joe/Jane were reversed on appeal.

    Parent
    You seem knowledgeable about (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    the actual nuts and bolts on how this works. My friend who is suffering from a very serious form of cancer, has had treatment denied by her insurance company. The drug was deem experimental even though it has been approved for different types of cancer and is actually causing her tumor to shrink. She has gone though 3 levels of the appeal process and has been denied each time. Where can she go from here?

    Parent
    What kind of plan... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:47:21 AM EST
    ...does your friend have--large group, small group or individual?  ERISA (large group) have a different appeal process that the state regulated plans (small group and individual).  

    What steps of the appeal process have they undertaken?  Non-ERISA coverage usually have independent, external review as a last resort.  ERISA plans usually have a mediation clause in the contract.  

    Parent

    She is a nurse who worked in a (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:11:42 AM EST
    hospital so I would think that she is part of a large group.

    From what I understand there is three levels of appeals connected with her policy. She has gone through all three levels. The third, the last level in the standard process, was denied just recently.

    Parent

    Hard to say without seeing... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:17:56 AM EST
    ...the actual contract.  But, if she is in a large group, I'd be contacting my HR benefits rep and get them involved and calling the DOI to see what assistance or guidence they might be able to provide.  

    Sorry I can't be of more help.  

    Parent

    I'll see if she has contacted the DOI (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    Not sure if the appeals process has been handled through the cancer center or though her HR rep. Thanks for taking the time to help.

    Parent
    Local news media - consumer help (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:13:13 PM EST
    I often see these cases profiled on local news through the consumer protection segment. They always win after they've been exposed on the TV news :)

    Let the "Problem Solvers" help out.

    Parent

    You mean (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:39:23 AM EST
    your heirs can sue....

    Parent
    I know from personal experience (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    that Congressional offices are very effective at getting results from Medicare. It's very funny to me that you're proposing litigation as the private alternative. I guess you don't have shpilkes about tort reform.

    Parent
    Sue? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:48:26 AM EST
    How many years is that when you're terminal without proper immediate treatment?  You are a hoot to communicate with on this.

    Parent
    So you have to get sick (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    around an election?

    What if you got terminally ill right now and gov't wouldn't pay for the new drug you needed?

    2010 is a long way off.

    Parent

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    Because private insurers don't have a whole long list of drugs they exclude and don't deny others they feel are experimental as a matter of practice.

    You live in an interesting reality.

    Parent

    I could have it right now (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:02:50 AM EST
    Without people like you.  If it weren't for you, we could have this tomorrow.

    Parent
    What if you are terminally ill (none / 0) (#59)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    and your private insurer follows the same path? Will your lawsuit be settled in your favor before 2010 gets into full swing and/or you die?

    Parent
    I would definitely (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:30:54 AM EST
    prefer the decision was made by an institution that didn't profit from denying me the coverage that I paid for.

    So yes, I'd rather have the government do it.  Medicare isn't so bad, is it?...

    Parent

    My Repub parents seem fine (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    with Medicare. The same parents who were always against that scary "socialized medicine". {grin}

    Parent
    Yes I would (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    Because I can vote where they are concerned.  I have influence!  Where the insurance companies are concerned I can just die.

    Parent
    Elections only happen (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    every two years in the case of a congressman.  You might be dead before your vote has any influence.

    You also overestimate your influence.

    With a private insurer you can take your business elsewhere.


    Parent

    And with the insurance companies (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    there is no election....ever.

    Parent
    There are 1900 providers (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:46:25 AM EST
    of health insurance in this country.

    There are plenty of choices.  

    The question is can someone afford all or any of them.

    I'm not saying private insurance is the only way.  I'm just pointing out that the other extreme is just  as problematic and so many are ready to trade one broken system for a new one.

    Parent

    There is no national health insurance market (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:48:04 AM EST
    and allowing for one would be a regulatory nightmare.

    Parent
    And none offer me affordable/usable (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:49:17 AM EST
    insurance.

    Parent
    The 1900 providers are mostly (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    affiliates of the main 6 or 7. They are not independent companies. There is little real competition, especially when you consider most insurance is provided by employers who limit your options off the top. I, for example, have no option at all in my carrier if I chose to take my employer's contribution. Yes, I could go on my own and pay for it all myself, but that would break the bank. All I can do is hope the insurance will be there when I need it. Much like my 401k.

    Parent
    We take what our employers offer (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:26:11 AM EST
    or, we pay extraordinarily high prices as individuals.  Many health insurance providers want nothing to do with individuals, so choices are limited.

    It's always possible, of course, for employees to request their employer seek better providers, but the employer is the final say. I've always been amazed when I'm working for a smaller company and they change providers....never have we, as the recipients of the benefits, been questioned on what we like or dislike about the current provider or what we would like to see added since they're out shopping.


    Parent

    That's BS (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    Most companies offer limited options for insurance benefits, and most states have effective healthcare monopolies.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:45:07 AM EST
    Only certain insurers in certain states!  Nothing free market happening there.  The whole insurance company system has become a stinking heap of B.S.

    Parent
    The federal government is the reason (none / 0) (#91)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:45:08 AM EST
    that is so.

    Try using your government influence on Obama to get that changed!

    Parent

    Wrong again. (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    The Feds have nothing to do with that.  

    Parent
    With your pre-existing condtion? (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    that you just got denied coverage on by another company? good luck with that.

    Parent
    State of Washington governs that (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    "pre-existing conditions" do not exist as long as there has not been a lapse in medical coverage.

    Parent
    I would prefer that neither the (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    insurance industry or the government make my medical decisions for me.

    Don't hear any complaints from Medicare patients that they cannot get the treatment that their doctors recommend. I know a lot of people who have been denied treatment by their insurance company and have personal experience in this area. Also, my doctors office informed me that once I went on Medicare it would no longer be a problem.

    All things being equals, I would prefer coverage by a not for profit entity that does not base their decisions on the need to provide their executive officers with multimillion dollar salaries and meet and exceed Wall Street expectations.

    Parent

    Heh! Medicare patients vote like an (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    evil swarm too.  Wouldn't it be nice if more of America were so inspired?

    Parent
    Congress may want to remember that (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    Medicare patients vote like an evil swarm before they cut $300 million from the Medicare and Medicaid budget.

    Baby Blunt, ex-governor, was so unpopular here in MO after he slashed Medicaid and other medical services that he didn't even run for reelection. Republican voters didn't like having their family members denied medical care anymore than Democrats did.

    Parent

    We ARE an evil swarm, Tracy... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    we have been since the 60s when we learned to take to the streets to fight our own Democratic president over the Vietnam War.  Some of us haven't forgotten those lessons but I see no one in the streets over health care.  Hell, I don't even see them sitting in in a congressional office.

    The political action on healthcare reform is pathetic.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#38)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    however Medicare is broke for the reasons you point out.  

    See my post about TennCare about what happens when "free" coverage is garunteed.

    Either the system goes broke, or the system has to start rationing benefits to make up the difference.

    Also you've obviously not run into a doctor who does't accept Medicare patients.

    There are plenty of them out there because they can't afford to give away their services.

    Parent

    Oh, so you want to raise Medicare reimbursements? (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:45:57 AM EST
    Great, let's do that.

    Parent
    Sounds like Medicare reimbursements (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    may be lowered under the pending proposals in Congress.

    Parent
    I'm still trying to figure out (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:48:10 AM EST
    what you think a person should do when they dislocate a hip and are not on private insurance that makes the injured sit there and contemplate whether they should get treated right away!

    Parent
    Your best bet (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    might be to hop a bus to Canada and/or Mexico.

    Parent
    Hmmm, a bus to Canada (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:55:47 AM EST
    would prob be cheaper than seeing a doc here about my busted up knee, eh?

    Parent
    Go to the ER (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:57:38 AM EST
    They can't deny you treatment.

    Then expect to pay for it.

    Parent

    Just curious, Slado (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    Why it is that you guys on the Right always leave out the corporate part of what you know damn well is the product of a collusion, that goes way back between corporations and "the federal goverment."

    Your beloved free market operators have wanted to operate more-or-less lawlessly -- yet, with all sorts a favors that only a govt can provide for years; yet you cant bring yourself to acknowledge this.

    Parent

    I guess you missed the cost concern (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:04:06 AM EST
    in my comment.

    Parent
    I read your post on TennCare (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    What I noticed was that you didn't seem to put much emphasis on pain and suffering when doing your analysis. I would imagine with a dislocated hip the person in question would be in a great deal of pain until it was treated and that left untreated, further damage could occur which would increase the cost of treatment. Now I don't know your neighbor or his financial situation, but it seems to me that most people who cannot afford insurance cannot afford to pay thousands upon thousands for medical care. But what the heck, its their problem right and if they lose everything that they own due to a medical emergency, its no skin off your nose.

    I have been in the medical system due to illness for the last year and a half and all of my doctors and hospitals take Medicare and Medicaid patients. Maybe the high cost of living in Tennessee cause doctors in your area to refuse to treat Medicare patients or maybe they are all Republicans who share your philosophy.

    The best way to resolve the monetary problems of Medicare would be to go to a national single payer system  and roll Medicare into it. By increasing the pool size, risks would be spread among hundreds of millions of people and an equal number of premiums would be collected to offset the expenses.  

    Parent

    I am the one that told him to go to the (none / 0) (#89)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    ER because he was in so much pain.  At that time I was 25 years old and had no idea how this all worked.

    That year I cot Cancer and spent the next 9 years of my life in and out of hospitals going through 4 rounds of chemo and eventually 3 operations.  The last of which removed 5 ribs and part of my lung.

    I do know that I would have died if I'd been living in Britain or Canada (unless I was rich and could have afforded to come to the US).   How do I know this?  Because I was told by several doctors I was terminal.   I and my family refused to accept this diagnosis and I eventually found a doctor who would see me.    

    In a government run system if I got a terminal diagnosis I wouldn't have any options other then to go to another country and pay for it myself.

    On the flip I know if I hadn't had the insurance I had or the family to help me make better medical decisions (my father is a physician) I would have also died.

    Both realities are tragic and unfair.

    The question is which do we want.   A totally private system where you get what you pay for or a totally public system where you get what the state can afford.

    If I believed a national system would provide the same quality of care I'd be all for it.   I just don't believe it will.    I believe it will become insolvable (and it's not even affordable now)and we'll be right back to where we started but it will be too late to undue the government system and the bureaucracy that will have been created.

    There has to be a better way.

    Parent

    Thank you for (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Spamlet on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    the personal information. It goes a long way toward elucidating the context of your arguments.

    Parent
    You do not get what you pay (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    for under a private system. That is the whole point. You and I both know that insurance companies go out of their way to rescind policies on seriously ill or terminally ill patients. Insurance companies have SOP to deny treatments recommended by doctors all the time.

    I don't want a national system that provides the same quality of care that we get from the insurance companies now because if you currently are seriously ill the quality of care that is alloted by the insurance companies pretty much s*cks.
     

    Parent

    And it's been getting steadily worse (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    over the years. 10yrs ago when you were denied treatment etc, at least you weren't paying a bleeping fortune for your insurance.

    My friend could have avoided bleeding out last time (she had all her blood replaced) if she could have found a doctor that would take her insurance (long history of insurance problems as she pays more gets less care etc and not being able to get the prob corrected) The whole "joke" is, after her last near death experience, she yet again could not get the prob fixed because she had been "patched up" so she was back to trying to find a Dr that would also act as an advocate so she could get the surgery before she lost too much blood and got "patched up" again. And would take her insurance. Dr that patched her up decided to take her on and is actually monitoring her with the frequently needed screenings etc. This has been going on for yrs. I remember her first DR and how he wasn't taking her seriously enough and then the hunt was on to find a DR that could help etc. She's almost bled to death 3 (or is it 4) times. And she started out with that "good" insurance which she supposedly still has and is paying quite a bit more for. I know the insurance plans she had over the first few yrs of this as we both worked for the same companies. She's only changed jobs once, and that was several yrs ago. It's the insurance that keeps changing, not her.

    Parent

    Believe, believe, believe... (none / 0) (#132)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    there's the problem.

    "The Queen said to Alice, `When I was your age, I always did it [believed impossible things] for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'" (Carroll pg. 250)

    Alice, of course, thinks that this is insane. What she does not think of are all the impossi-ble things that she has been taught to believe.

    Literature -- even children's literature -- can be very instructive in defining and navigating in the real world...which is not the world our parents told us about.


    Parent

    Sorry, Slado, (none / 0) (#163)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    for whatever you went through.

    However, a friend of mine in England was diagnosed with throat cancer some 25 years ago. He was treated immediately and has been cancer free ever since. A friend of mine in Australia was diagnosed with cancer last fall. She was treated immediately and is cancer free.

    Your story makes it sound like you believe every single person in a gov't medical program dies if they are diagnosed with cancer. Zero survival rate outside the US private insurance system.

    Parent

    A co=-werker in Canada (none / 0) (#165)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:12:31 PM EST
    blew out her knee in a softball game. At the time I left the company - a year or more after her injury - she still hadn't gotten and MRI becuase, in her words, "I don't know anybody with enough pull to get me up high on the list."

    My British rugby-playing friends described going to the public health office in the UK "Like going to the DMV in America."

    Parent

    Just goes to show (none / 0) (#166)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    every person has a different story depending on circumstances. Same stories, and worse, can be found here under our system.


    Parent
    Agreed, health care is lacking (none / 0) (#170)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:30:52 PM EST
    under every system.

    Parent
    I work with someone who participates (none / 0) (#172)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    in the plan our firm offers, and she has a sister who works for a major health insurer, and both have experienced the same thing with two different insurance companies: doctor says patient needs "X" and insurance company says, "not until you try medication A, medication B if medication A doesn't work, have procedure C if neither medications work," and so on.  Both have suffered through courses of treatement for different conditions that are not working, and cannot get what they need covered until they finish jumping through all the hoops the insurance companies are requiring.  

    Is it even possible that the cost of these required treatments could be less than covering the medication/treatment the doctors have prescribed in the belief that this is what these patients need?  

    And how much sense does it make to subject people, who have already paid in hundreds of dollars a month in premiums, to the needless suffering of having to take medication or have procedures that do not work, and to the additional expense - with co-pays and deductibles for prescriptions and office visits and time off from work - of all this medical hoop-jumping?

    You can cite all the British and Canadian horror stories you want, but people in this country, who pay a lot more for the privilege of being covered, are experiencing much the same.

    Parent

    I don't doubt it one bit. (none / 0) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    My point is that some people point to the UK and/or Canada as though their health care systems are examples of some shining beacons of wonderfulness that would solve all our problems.

    They're not.

    Parent

    Well, I look at it this way: (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    since every system has its problems, and no system is perfect, why wouldn't it be better to have everyone covered - not just give them a shiny new policy, but guarantee their CARE is covered - and have it take a much smaller bite out of our pockets and out of the economy?  

    I thought those were the goals of reforming the system, but not only will this "plan" not cover everyone, it doesn't appear to be doing anything to lower the costs.  So who's going to benefit?  Yeah, you know the answer to that one: insurance companies, lobbying firms and the politicians raking in the contributions.  Duh.

    We're going to end up with a restrictive "public" option that would be the equivalent of having a public transportation system you couldn't use if you already had a car.  This makes NO SENSE.

    Parent

    We're Number 37 (none / 0) (#176)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    at last report, and no future reporting expected.

    Parent
    W/o knowing the data used (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:56:58 PM EST
    to make that ranking, I'm not convinced.

    For example, we're often taken to task on our infant mortality rates (almost assuredly one of the data points used by your link, but regardless) but when you dig into the numbers it's clear that over 1/2 of the infant deaths in the US are due to mother's obesity and that no other country has anywhere near the rates of obesity that we do.

    How will another health care system reduce our rates of obesity?

    Parent

    Private Insurance Providers here (none / 0) (#175)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:43:36 PM EST
    have MDs and RNs on staff. They sit and review medical records all day. Their entire job is dedicated to over-riding the treatment recommended by the doctor who is seeing the patient. The intention is to deny benefits. Those people get paid HUGE dollars to do this work!

    Parent
    That sounds similar to what my (none / 0) (#180)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:17:26 PM EST
    friend is going through and she also had misdiagnosis upfront (written off as early menopause for a yr or so) that made things worse. She has "good" insurance. She has racked a bloody fortune in ER services. It took 4 days to stabilize her last time.

    I get absolutely freakin' livid when I think about what she's been through. The first time she needed an ambulance, the medics took her to a specific hospital as they recognized it as the better place for her condition. Says something when they know where to take a woman in her condition . . .

    Parent

    Do you think changing the system (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    will stop misdiagnoses?

    Parent
    Possible (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:24:28 PM EST
    I was originally going to pop off a "no", but reflecting back, I had 3 friends misdiagnosed with "early menopause". This is a bit of an issue for women "of a certain age". Not getting the proper tests and screening but instead the "early menopause" and a treatment that actually feeds my friend's problem. I can't remember if it fed my other friend's cancer. I do know she would have been better off if they had caught the cancer much earlier instead of treating her for "early menopause". Fran Dresher (sp?) also encountered this problem along with at least one other "celebrity" (sorry, memory issues!). I can't even tell you how many Drs and Dr visits my friends went through before they were ever screened and diagnosed. I think it's the ACS that recommends checking for cancer etc should be the first procedure when symptoms such as my friends had appear. Especially late 30's early 40's.

    Parent
    I think human error will continue (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:33:10 PM EST
    as long as doctors are humans.

    Parent
    Totally agree (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:47:11 PM EST
    but changing the practice of diagnosing certain conditions could play a big role for catching things like this. Takes proper testing though . . . and for my friend's condition, lots of follow up and monitoring (not always approved). But just getting the initial tests in there would have certainly saved 2 of my friends a lot of pain/grief/etc. IOW, rule out cancer and a couple other conditions. Sure, it's more expensive, but it also falls under "preventive/catching things earlier".

    And your looking at an awful lot of "human error" when it comes to this issue. I think it would be great to have more proactive Drs, but the insurance also needs to be on board. Before and after diagnosis.

    Parent

    Ours vs. Theirs (none / 0) (#182)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:56:34 PM EST
    You should find these statistics very interesting on the wait periods for medical services.

    Parent
    What are you basing your facts on? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    Medicare is a very competent program from the experiences I've watched my parents go through. My mother was put through every conceivable test. Medicare never denied the treatments, nor did they deny payment. The doctors didn't impress me because they go to extremes to manipulate the system thinking it brings them more money to order a battery of excess tests...apparently, they aren't noticing how much it costs them in administrative time and personnel to do this.

    Note, too, the doctors Medicare patients go to are the same doctors privately insured people go to. It was never easy to get an appt, and my mother often had to wait 2-3 months to get in to see some specialists (and, that included doctors who her primary care MD used their clout to try and get an earlier date to see her). Those who complain about the Canadian "wait times" really need to call and try to make an appt with a doctor here.

     

    Parent

    Because we couldn't raise a tax now (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    could we?

    Parent
    With Medicare, etc.. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:23:46 AM EST
    the doctor makes the decision, not a bureaucrat, within open, transparent limitations that can be changed by the will of the people.

    But the large corporations are really an unelected government, and they are exactly as bureaucratic as the worst governments because they have absolute control. There is no recourse with them, and our elected officials are just their minions.

    If you have any quibble with the current setup, it's the corporations you need to deal with. They are at the heart of all of it. And they are unelected, therefore totally unaccountable.

    Parent

    It gets almost never reported! (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:30:48 AM EST


    Parent
    Interestingly, HR 676 WOULD outlaw (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:07:40 AM EST
    existing coverage. That's one of the reasons it's not "on the table."

    Parent
    If it isn't on the table what is (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    Tom Price talking about then?  Is he just making stuff up?  I can't believe it...

    Parent
    He's probably talking about (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    what many Democrats really want. But since that's not really under discussion, he's really being dishonest.

    Parent
    You sound so much older than you are (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    I want the Democrats to come back for the really good stuff, but I've lived through some political chipping away at different things.  Once reform is underway, in my opinion more reform is possible and pushing for better options can be more easily done.  Do I dare write such a thing though?

    Parent
    Once you get your foot in the door (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:32:15 AM EST
    you can make lots of changes.

    Parent
    Or, whoever or whatever is on the other (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    side can keep slamming the door on it until it breaks and you remove it, screaming in pain.

    Parent
    And then you can sit there in pain (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    and decide whether to go to the ER or not!

    Parent
    For every point (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    one side makes, the other has a counter point. Knowing the American public has no patience for detailed discussion, the status quo crowd just needs to keep throwing out talking point after talking point before the public throws up its hands and gives in. And, as has been proven on so many occasions, the Republicans are so much better at this game than the Dems.

    We have no better example of "for profit" vs. "for public good" than the banking debacle we're experiencing right now. We need advertising that ties the two together. We should show a devastated family losing its home in foreclosure, while fat cats are raking in billions.  

    The caption should read: "Would you trust you family's health to Goldman Sachs?"


    Banking example... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    is flawed because only the profits are private, the losses and even the insane bonuses and compensation are socialized...if the insurance company got a handout everytime they came up short, they might be a little more liberal with the actual health care.  

    On second thought, they'd probably just increase the bonuses...scratch that last bit.

    I keep comin' back to your f*cked if you don't have a 100k minimum nest egg for catastrophic illness.

     

    Parent

    As we used to say (none / 0) (#192)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:53:48 PM EST
    in the Hippie 60's, "No matter where you are, there you are."

    Some things never change.

    Parent

    Tony Fratto (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    over at CNBC is saying that the impending jobless recovery is the fault of Obama's policy, specificially taxes.  Apparently Fratto is braindead because the last recession we had the largest tax break in history and suffered through 46 months until we reached peak employment.

    So if tax cuts create jobs, why in the heck did it take 46 months to return to peak?  

    The credit/housing bubble that was allowed to inflate without so much as a looksie is summed up best by Bush "wall street got drunk."

    And we are all suffering from the hangover...

    How can CNBC print this garbage????

    That is an interesting tradition. (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 08:57:33 AM EST
    Thanks for the info!  Don't know if I'll watch the Tour, but maybe I'll watch the Triplets of Belville.

    Never an American, apparently. (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:02:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Colbert could have a field day with this...n/t (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:05:09 AM EST


    Parent
    See Greenwald today...Colbert (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    had a field day with Chuck Todd and the Attorney General and....yup, torture.  Title: A Perfect World.  Quoting Todd, of course.

    Perfect Colbert.

    Parent

    Kenny has abandoned after a crash (none / 0) (#9)
    by BillK on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:11:22 AM EST
    He's on his way to the hospital.

    And, not waiting in a 6 month line at the (none / 0) (#167)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    hospital. Imagine that!!

    LE GRAND-BORNAND, France -- Last-placed rider Kenny Van Hummel crashed during Wednesday's 17th stage of the Tour de France and was taken to a hospital in an ambulance.

    The Skil-Shimano team rider crashed at the 88-kilometre mark and suffered a knee injury, Tour organizers said.

    Scans at the Sallanches hospital didn't reveal any fracture or bone lesion.

    Van Hummel was 161th overall before the 169.5-kilometre ride from Bourg-Saint-Maurice and Le Grand-Bornand, three hours 35 minutes 54 seconds behind leader Alberto Contador.

    Three riders withdrew form the race Wednesday and Van Hummel is replaced in last place by Yauheni Hutarovich of Belarus, who is 158th overall, 3:26.01 off the pace.




    Parent
    TennCare (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:27:00 AM EST
    Great article about a system I have first hand knowledge of from the 13 years I lived in Nashville...

    TennCare

    I vividly remember the day my next door neighbor "Bubba" had his hip slip out of socket and called me to take him to the emergency room.   He didn't want to screw with an ambulance (because he was self insured I later found out) and asked me to take him to the hospital.   He actually asked me if he thought he should wait till Monday (it was Friday night) so he could see his regular doctor and avoid the ER altogether.  I suggested he'd be pretty miserable waiting 3 days to see a doctor and a trip to the ER was well worth it no matter the cost.   He eventually agreed ( I later found out this was not his first trip) and being the good Samaritan I am I loaded him into the back of his SUV and drove him to the hospital ER.

    When I got there I was shocked at how empty it was.  I got him signed up, they took him to an exam room and they started to work on him.   I hung around till his family got there and on my way out the door I asked a nurse was it always this empty?  This was a private HCA hospital right next to Vanderbilt University Medical Center.  

    She responded that no, usually it was quite busy but a week earlier they had made changes to TennCare that are discussed in this article.  They used to get tons of TennCare patients she said that would show up because TennCare would pay HCA for anything the patients needed and typically the patients showed up for all sorts of ailments, drugs and anything they could get through the ER.  Now they were not allowed to go to HCA hospitals for anything and people weren't showing up anymore.

    Obviously there some bad consequences in such harsh measures in that some people stayed home that could have used care but the overall point is clear.  If it's free to you then you have no reason to worry about costs and there is no way for the government to contain the eventual costs and this eventually leads to rationed care or a slash in benefits to contain costs.

    Compare that to self insured Bubba.  He had me drive him to the ER to avoid the expense of an ambulance.   He actually considered avoiding the ER all together and suffering for three days so he could wait to see his personal doctor.  He made a cost benefit analysis that the added cost and upping his insurance premium was worth it for his personal well being.   He was an informed purchaser who saved some money to the system by considering all his options.  He might have actually chosen the ER we used because he knew it was cheaper.  I don't know but I do know it wasn't the closest to us.   Compare that to the "free healthcare" TennCare patient would not have hesitated to call an ambulance and then throw themself into the system costs be dammed.    

    That's the problem with "free healthcare".  It's only free to the patient or purchaser and when something is "free" to you why would you worry about the overall cost?

    There is no cost benefit (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:37:06 AM EST
    to someone calling in sick for three days or unable to preform at work or home for three days because they were needlessly suffering for "costs".  They cost their employer, they cost our GNP and the economy, they cost their family,

    Parent
    It was the weekend (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:48:01 AM EST
    He wouldn't have cost anyone any money.

    My point is simple.  If you are financially affected by the health decisions you make (either through cost or rebates) you make better decisions.

    Parent

    So be honest about what you really believe (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:49:55 AM EST
    In many circumstances, people who can't afford care should just go die.

    Parent
    That's just silly (none / 0) (#65)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:06:25 AM EST
    I just am not foolish enough to believe that a government run health system will not result in new and different problems.

    No one just dies now.  Everyone is treated if they are sick.  

    The issue is will they go broke doing so.  

    In a government system people will "just die" waiting in line or because a new drug procedure isn't covered(see other countries for their horror stories).

    The answer is out there in private co-ops with the government, tax breaks, incentives what have you.

    I'm only saying a totally publicly funded option is just as bad (worse in my opinion) then what we have now.   We'll just trade one set of problems for the same ones or different ones.

    Don't ask me ask the Mayo clinic.

    Accusing me of wishing poor people should die is rather ludicrous.


    Parent

    Your defense of the current system (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    (and you would be lying if you claimed that you weren't defending the current system) inescapably implies that you think people who can't afford quality care should not get it.

    Parent
    I hate the current system (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:10:45 AM EST
    I am not in favor of people dying.

    You don't understand my point.

    I actually believe gov't has created most of the problems we have now by not really allowing market forces to be applied.

    Too much is mandated and regulated now that drives up costs.

    What I do believe is government healthcare doesn't work.   It's too expensive so it eventually leads to substandard care and rationing.

    That eventually leads to what you accuse me of.  People dying for no reason.

    Parent

    Your belief about government healthcare (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    is disproven by the example of most of the rest of the first world, especially France.

    And if you think regulation is the problem with healthcare in America today, I really have to question your sanity.

    Parent

    People just die now because (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    insurance companies won't cover and refuse to pay for new drug procedure and people can't afford to pay for the procedure themselves.

    Parent
    Even if the public option (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:37:35 AM EST
    is just as bad as any insurance company, at least people aren't getting rich denying me coverage. That is worth something to me.

    Also, the government would hopefully not be using my premiums to speculate in the stock market, then raising my premiums to cover their losses.  Actually, I take that back - what else is TARP?

    Parent

    As ugly and unwarranted comment as I've ever (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    seen here on TL.

    Parent
    But people do die (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    because of insurance denials and/or because they can't afford the treatment. Hospitals/docs do turn people without insurance away. Supporting the current system is in fact saying this is okay.

    Parent
    Do you support our system of justice? (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    Or do you advocate for it's complete overhaul?

    Do you support our public education system? Or do you advocate for it's complete overhaul?

    Do you support our president? Or do you advocate for his replacement?

    Do you support your SO? Family? Children? Friends? Your co-workers? Or do you completely disavow them?

    Because each one of those things/people have negative aspects, so if you don't disavow those things you in fact say that those negative aspects are okay.

    Right?

    Parent

    So when (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    you don't get healthcare until 90 days into a new job, and you suffer a heart attack, you should be financially punished for your bad luck?  You're the problem there?

    Parent
    There are other options (none / 0) (#67)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    If you are between jobs you should be on Cobra.

    Also you could have applied for Medicaid.

    As you point out however some just don't sign up for insurance and no system will prevent that unless we go to free healthcare for all and that isn't going to happen and we can't afford it.

    Parent

    Do you have any idea (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    how expensive COBRA is?

    I'll bet you do, so this is just another example of your belief that people who can't afford care should not get it.

    Parent

    I know exactly how expensive it is. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    If your arguement is healthcare is too expensive then I agree.

    But what happens when a few pay for all is the system goes broke.  This will eventually lead to poor people being put in one box while rich poeple go to private hospitals.  It's already happening in Canada and it's against the law.    Capitalism always finds a way.

    I don't think that is fair either.

    Somewhere in the middle lies the answer.   We have more in common then you think.

    Think outside the box.   Don't pigeonhole someone who isn't in favor of single payer or some form of socialized medicine.

    Parent

    Have you looked at the Medicaid requirements?! (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:12:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Instead of beating me up on the details (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:18:25 AM EST
    Riddle me this batman.

    How can we afford single payer?

    How can the government afford to insure everyone when Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security are broke?

    Do you really believe you'll get better doctors, hospitals, research and advanced care when profits are removed from the system?

    Do you trust the people in Washington to make health decisions in your best intrest?

    On and on.

    one extreme to the other.

    Again, I'm not in favor of the status quo.  I'm only pointing out that a single payer or socialized system is trading one extreme for another.

    Parent

    You do realize (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    that the most expensive patients (read, old people) are already on Medicare, right?

    The answer is to provide Medicare to everyone and to raise taxes or run a deficit to pay for it.

    Parent

    You're not pointing out anything. (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    You are simply repeating tired talking points and spouting unfounded, unsupported opinions.  

    Parent
    You afford single payer (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:43:59 AM EST
    in the long run by people paying premiums that are not jacked up to provide profits to insurance companies, and make up for their stock market losses.  For the startup costs of the system, yes, you raise taxes.

    You also afford it by getting rid of the model and assumption that being a doctor means you become a millionaire.

    Yes, I know that those two things mean we will probably never have it in the USA. That does not mean it is not the best system.

    Parent

    Your facts are in question (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    and you are really ideologically driven. Everything you complain about with the current system was created by our unelected, unaccountable government: the corporations. If you think the big corporations are anything else, you aren't looking at the facts.

    If we had universal, single payer care like Medicare for all, it would be far cheaper for the overall economy than what we're doing now, there would be accountability to the people, and we could adjust it to get it "just right."

    The only reason the corps. are making noises like they might cooperate is that they know a serious public plan like Medicare would be chosen by nearly everyone and would put them out of business, which is exactly what the Repubs loudly, nakedly whined about when the idea was first put forth. The insurance corporations want to get into the conversation so they can control the outcome, period.

    This is the capitalism we have now: corporations that are unaccountable but supported by our tax dollars and welfare giveaways. Real capitalism would be for these corporations to compete on a level field with the public option, and they will fight tooth and nail to avoid this genuine free market.

    Parent

    The problem with your argument (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by CST on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:42:15 PM EST
    "Again, I'm not in favor of the status quo.  I'm only pointing out that a single payer or socialized system is trading one extreme for another"

    Is that it is never followed by an actual plan.  This has been the republican tactic for decades.  Bash whatever healthcare alternatives there are, say you "really want to change things" but then never come up with a better idea.

    The status quo is NOT ok.  It's criminal and it kills people.  Primarily poor people and middle class people.  By just bashing any alternatives and not providing any answers, you are tacitly approving the status quo.

    Parent

    In NYS you have to make less than (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    $8500 py to be eligible as a single person. Now that would change if I had kids or decided to get pregnant . . .

    SS is broke?!

    Parent

    We can afford anything... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    ...that benefits the vast majority of the nation becausethe ONLY thing that makes money worth anything is, simply, that we believe it has value.  We control the value of money through our decisions, both economic and political.  Going to a single-payer system is the MOST out of the box route, obviously, it is the most controversial, slander inducing plan that is not even talked about seriously.

    Health for profit will never work when it comes to the basic, general care of the entire nation.  For-profit healthcare, at its very core, requires a greater concern for money than for patients.  Obviously.  It MUST care about the bottom line before it cares about patients, that is its entire operational paradigm.  And it needs to keep its carefully selected patients managably unhealthy, since if they are healthy and not in need of fancy new procedures...then there is no profit to be had.

    Still, for-profit healthcare can certainly exist, it should simply do so while having to compete with a public option.  Or do you think American citizens do not have the right to choose a public option.  I say let them have both, but let EVERYBODY have both those choices.  

    Parent

    "Details" like the restrictions on (none / 0) (#154)
    by sallywally on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    Medicaid, the Cobra costs that many/most can't afford, the insurance denials to terminally ill patients (or those who become terminal because of such denials)...minor details like that?

    So change the subject,eh?

    Parent

    And anyway (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    this is what you said earlier:

    My point is simple.  If you are financially affected by the health decisions you make (either through cost or rebates) you make better decisions.

    Not signing up for insurance is part of the cost-benefit analysis that you think is part of a "better decision" making process.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#97)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    And last time I checked this is a free country.

    Under no system will everyone be insured other then single payer and that system will eventually go broke.   Even if healthcare was free some would not choose to be treated until it's too late.

    Unless you propose a agency to enforce proper health decisions.  

    Even if we could afford single payer now (which we can't) eventually it would go broke and we'd go back to a public/private system.

    See Canada and Britain for your proof.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:03:19 AM EST
    Your argument leaves out one very important aspect - The health care system can't completely run on a "capitalistic" model.  Under this model, a consumer can choose if and when they want to participate in the market and at what price is their breaking point.  Supply and demand come together in an equilibrium to set a market price.  However, there is no "choice" in health care - especially in emergency medicine.  Those without insurance will either completely "opt-out" of procuring the service, or will go to the emergency room and then possibly default on payments when the bill comes, thereby artifically setting the "price point" for all consumers.

    Plus, hospitals who try to compete will actually increase costs as they all will try to have the latest technologies for every department (especially in a political environment where there is lots of antitrust regulation) - it's hard to compete with the hospital down the street if you don't have the latest MRI, or top cardiac care unit.

    Parent

    Do you realize (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    you just cited two government programs?!?

    Parent
    Please Steve do not confuse (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    Slado with facts.

    Parent
    Sure a system will prevent that (none / 0) (#80)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:27:18 AM EST
    mandates.

    Parent
    In your example, your neighbor (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    was going to be financially affected by whether he decided to seek treatment, was wavering between going to the ER and waiting a couple of days, and you apparently did not agree that he was making the right decision to wait.  You encouraged him to make a different decision - did you also offer to help him pay the bills?

    I don't know anyone who enjoys sitting in emergency rooms or taking time off to get a colonoscopy or a mammogram, or who wakes up planning which fun procedure he or she can have on someone else's dime.  Or who likes feeling looked down upon for not having the means to have insurance or the wherewithal to pay for their care.  Your comments suggest that people treat the hospital ER like a fun shopping spree - that's just not so.

    And by the way, Medicare is not free - everyone on it pays a monthly premium, and many also pay for supplemental insurance to fill in the gaps.  And even after paying a premium, the care one gets with Medicare insurance is not always "free," either - there are co-pays and deductibles and not everything is covered.

    But it's so much easier to put your nose up in the air and shudder at the idea of poor people getting health care when they should just do us all a favor and go off in the corner to die.


    Parent

    You couldn't be more wrong. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Slado on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:48:22 AM EST
    Get off your moral high horse and read my posts.

    Poor people always get hurt.  That's why is sucks to be poor.

    Believing a government run system will some how make this better is asmorally repugnant as what you accuse me of.

    I believe there is a better way.   And that way is not a national health care system.

    Parent

    Slado, you disclosed your personal (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:47:29 AM EST
    information after I had written the comment to which you responded, and like others, I appreciate the insight; I also have an appreciation for the arduous journey you took to get well, and hope that you continue to be well.

    That being said, I wasn't getting from some of your comments any of what you wrote in that one where you disclosed your battle with cancer - I was going by a lot of comments about, essentially, no one having any excuse for not having insurance, since there are so many companies out there, and for not dumping a plan one didn't like for a better one for the same reason.  And the one where you stated that financial incentives making people make better decisions was downright cold.

    Insurance companies have huge financial incentives for the decisions they make - starting with whether they will insure you at all.  And given the current climate, where you cannot so much as fail to disclose that you once had an ingrown toenail, or a mild case of acne, the chances of getting insurance and keeping it once you have to make use of it for anything other than routine, preventive care, are getting smaller and smaller.  We give them our money, and they want to keep as much of it as possible, so their incentive is to pay as little as they can for as many of us as they can; in the long run, that does not improve anyone's health, but it does result in huge profits for the insurance companies.  They may be the only ones making the money, because hospitals, doctors and other providers are also caught in that trap, being dependent on reimbursements from insurance companies on the one hand, and having to eat the cost of care for those who are not insured.  And in the case of those who have no insurance but who have the means to pay, or those who have individual policies, charging them more as a way to recoup some of their losses and because they have no negotiating power.

    It's a sick system, with insurance companies sucking the life out everyone down the chain in order for them to maintain the huge profits - and that is what they are protecting today, spending millions a day to lobby for as little change as possible.

    It may well be that you would have died in another country with a single payer or nationalized plan.  But you also would likely have died here if you didn't have the kinds of connections - and means - to get the treatment you needed.  What is unconscionable to me is that people in this country die from common, preventable conditions, or start life with compromised health that doesn't improve over time, or develop cancers and heart disease because they don't get preventive care.  We can have the argument about whether people who have no money and no insurance should be having babies, but the babies are not to blame for their mothers' decisions, so we shouldn't be consigning them to poor health to punish their mothers.

    All the major developed nations in the free world have some kind of single-payer/universal health care system.  They spend less than half per person on health care than we do, and have better outcomes, so we know it can be done and we know it works.  To ignore that basic truth is to consign us to digging ourselves deeper and deeper into an economic hole.  

    Kind of like a grave.

    Parent

    Lets see some examples (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 07:15:36 PM EST
    from the last eight years that prove you people know ANY "better way" to do anything.

    This isnt about amoral "beliefs" or "believing", it's about looking at what's worked and hasnt worked here and in other parts of the world.

    Why aren't all these other countries all running to make the kind of modifications you suggest, Slado -- is it just as simple as that you and the rest of the dittoheads are that much smarter and more compassionate than everyone else?

    Parent

    I think it is well documented (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    that usually men making the kinds of better healthcare decisions you are talking about leave their families at a much younger age via heart attack and stroke.  No thanks!  I like my husband, he'll be getting routine care and preventative care or there will be hell to pay.

    Parent
    IMO your neighbor was contemplating (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:16:05 PM EST
    making a very poor medical decision because of cost. You evidently agree that waiting to get treatment was not a good idea since you encouraged him to go to the ER. Think the scenario you are presently invalidates your argument that people make better medical decisions if they have to pay for them because without your counseling your neighbor may very well have made the wrong choice.

    Parent
    I agree with the TennCare changes as you (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:50:21 AM EST
    describe them if there are low cost clinics people can use to get their medicines and minor ailments checked out. It is horrifically inefficient to use high cost ER facilities to check out routine ailments. I'm betting there were such provisions made in the TennCare law.

    Parent
    "Free healthcare" (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    From another view  ;)

     

    Our health care system is engineered, deliberately or not, to resist change. The people who pay for it -- you and I -- often don't realize that they're paying for it. Money comes out of our paychecks, in withheld taxes and insurance premiums, before we ever see it. It then flows to doctors, hospitals and drug makers without our realizing that it was our money to begin with.

    The doctors, hospitals and drug makers use the money to treat us, and we of course do see those treatments. If anything, we want more of them. They are supposed to make us healthy, and they appear to be free. What's not to like?



    Parent
    Believe me that on a limited income (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    I noticed that two years ago my insurance premium tripled and that this year it more than doubled. I also noticed that after each premium increase rather than getting better insurance coverage for my money, I had higher out of pocket expenses (i.e. less coverage for considerably higher costs).

    Parent
    I think what I quoted was more true (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    several yrs ago when premiums were low. It was stupid not to at least go for check ups etc. I do think some people that still have decent insurance find they use their Drs more even though they are paying more. It still looks like a pretty good deal when you look at the bills . . .

    I'm self employed and healthy (until I busted my knee up) The premiums were just too much to justify for annual checkups. Plus, I'm now trying to avoid a "pre-existing" condition so I can buy HI when I get to CA.

    Parent

    Ugh! (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:12:29 PM EST
    Don't get me started!

    I have a pretty good employer plan. But two months ago I had a sinus infection that I didn't go to the doctor for, because I am an hourly employee and didn't feel like taking time off work, but I finally broke down and went after a few weeks of suffering.

    I saw a nurse practitioner (which was fine).  For some reason, they did and EKG on me (ok - I take meds for HBP).  She met with me for a few minutes, listened to my lungs, and then the tech came in and gave me a test for swine flu (this was at the height of the panic - the test consisted of a Q-tip swab of the inside of my nose). I got a prescription for Z-pac and left.

    They didn't charge me my co-pay when I left, so I figured I would get a bill for the $20 co-pay, plus a residual because I haven't met my deductible.  I nearly had heart failure when I got a bill saying my total bill was for $350.00, and the insurance only covered $150!

    So, my simple little sinus infection (which I knew I had - I get them several times a year), for which I got a prescription that cost my $5.00, cost me (out-of-pocket) $200 PLUS 1/2 day's pay!

    My butt is still chapped just thinking about it!

    Parent

    Obama helps his family (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    So nice when families can lend a helping hand.  

    Dick Cheney got his Secret Service protection extended - the first time ever for a former VP.

    Protection for former Vice President Dick Cheney has been extended, Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan confirmed to CNN Tuesday.

    Donovan would not say for how long the extension will last. The extension, reportedly requested by Cheney, went through the standard process and was officially authorized by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano July 17, according to DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban.

    The extension was not based on a specific threat against the former vice president, CNN has also learned. Rather, officials believed the move was justified given the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, political debate about the Bush administration's strategies and Cheney's active public schedule, according to a government official with knowledge of the matter.

    Ordinarily, former vice presidents only receive Secret Service protection for the first six months after leaving office. DHS told CNN this is the first time a former vice president's security detail has been extended beyond the standard duration.
    Thought that Cheney was a Republican (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    and though that people should pull themselves up by their boot straps and pay for the services that they need rather than except a government handout.

    Oh, silly me that rule doesn't apply to the very, very rich.

    Parent

    We know (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    He knows how to shoot a gun!

    Parent
    "I won't quit 'til I fall off my bike." (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    Terrific epitaph.

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    He fell off his bike today and is in the hospital.

    Parent
    Hope he will be ok (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 04:04:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Fun with Florida politics (none / 0) (#131)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    Two tidbits from today's Orlando Sentinel....

    Gov. (and Senate candidate) Charlie Crist does not support Sotomayor confirmation because she, and I paraphrase closely, 'does not have enough respect for the right to keep and bear arms'. He is original, I'll give him that. I had not heard that critique yet. He must be more worried about that Republican primary than I thought.

    Florida Republicans are enlisting Carrie Prejean for help in learning how to reach young voters. Just doesn't get any better than that.

    Oh, I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:30:12 PM EST
    we have the Naked Cowboy wanting to run against Bloomberg . . .

    Parent
    Soon to be addressed as (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    Naked Mayor I hope...I wish I was still a city resident to vote for him!

    Disgusted as NY'ers are with politics, we might finally be ready to elect a monkey wrench...its too bad Grandpa Al Lewis isn't still with us, it coulda been his year!

    Parent

    Who to assist as a spokesperson (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:50:58 PM EST
    was a fierce competition amongst Florida Republicans. Joe the Plumber had a slight lead after the interview part of the competition, but Carrie won out as she was finally deemed to be cuter than Joe in the swimsuit competition.

    Ann Coulter, the early favorite, was sent packing early after it was found she had registered to vote in the hometown of every judge on the panel, but not before taking home the Miss Congeniality award.

    If for any reason Carrie can not fulfill her duties, Joe will step in and wear the crown. Expect Ann to be interviewed on Fox News as she has complained the judges had access to still photos of the eventual winner taken prior to the competition that the other competitors couldn't compete with.

    Parent

    Depressing Stats (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 01:59:58 PM EST
    Like one out of five prisoners in California, and nearly 10 percent of all inmates nationally in 2008, Ms. Thompson is serving a life sentence. She will be eligible for parole by 2020.

    More prisoners today are serving life terms than ever before -- 140,610 out of 2.3 million incarcerated nationally -- under tough mandatory minimum-sentencing laws and the declining use of parole for eligible convicts, according to a report released Wednesday by The Sentencing Project, a corrections research and reform advocacy group. The report tracks the increase in life sentences from 1984, when the number of inmates serving life terms was 34,000.

    Two-thirds of prisoners serving life sentences are Latino or black, the report found. In New York State, for example, 16.3 percent of prisoners serving life terms are white.

     Although most people serving life terms were convicted of violent crimes, sentencing experts say there are many exceptions, like Norman Williams, 46, who served 13 years of a life sentence for stealing a floor jack out of a tow truck, a crime that was his third strike.

    NYT

    Blue Dog Convolutions (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    Here is a big part of the problem, many Americans believe in the system that is ripping them off.. a bad habit.

    Ross' is in deep with the status quo, but sees people hurting. He was a Pharmacist, and mother a nurse, and he loooooves Blue Cross.. (wonder why?)

    So he is planning to vote against the dem house plan. His logic is so twisted. Obviously his habits and empirical knowledge are at war. Habits will win out, just like the poor white who always vote agin themselves by voting GOP.

    link (none / 0) (#190)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 05:59:53 PM EST
    here..

     

    Rep. Mike Ross, who grew up in this town of 3,600, about 100 miles southwest of Little Rock, represents residents such as 62-year-old Sandy Barham, a restaurant owner with a heart ailment who can't afford health insurance for herself or her employees.

    "I can't tell you the stress of living on the edge, just wondering, 'Am I going to get sick?

    [snip]

    Yet Ross stands ready to try to block passage of a House bill that, its supporters say, would provide exactly what Arkansas needs: guaranteed insurance and a wider choice of coverage at competitive prices.

    McClatchy

    Parent

    They Hate Our Troops (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 06:47:00 PM EST
    Late last week, media outlets reported that Taliban forces had captured U.S. Army soldier Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan. While the circumstances of his capture are not entirely known, Bergdahl said in a video released by his captors that he lagged behind a patrol, while other reports say he walked off a base with Afghan soldiers. In an appearance on Fox News earlier this week, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters suggested that the Taliban should kill Bergdahl because he is an "apparent deserter."

    O'REILLY: He leaves his weapon and he goes out someplace. Number one that tells me that he is crazy, Colonel, that he is a nut. Nobody does that.

    PETERS: He may be mentally disturbed. [...]

    O'REILLY: It's got to be I'm totally out of my mind. And that's what I think this guy is. I think he is crazy.

    think progress

    Wednesday Morning Open Thread | 193 comments (193 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment