Healthcare reform

[mr_genius]

If we went after the corporations who, time and again, violate the law by providing the employment supply that fuels undocumented immigration - we would go a longer way to solving that problem and the "illegals getting healthcare" problem than any healthcare reform bill could do.

 

But the truth is, generally when it comes to enforcement of the law - government is too often in the service of protecting money over the law.

 

they can buy into any program they want that is not subsidized by the US government.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Tex, not every illegal immigrant in this country picks crops or busses tables. How many meat packing pants have been raided lately? Those are good paying jobs that people lined for inthe hundreds when they were available. We talked about all this in other threads, I have no problems with a viable guest worker program, but then they wouldn't be here ILLEGALLY then, would they. Anyone not here on a guest worker program should be promptly shown the way out of the country.

 

Speaking of wisdom ^^^^^^^

[Rex Kickass]

Politico is reporting that Obama is planning to bail on the all in one bill and go for an incremental approach. It may not be a bad thing in the end, because it makes opposition for the sake of opposition that much harder. If he puts off the public option for another year, then there's no way that most key GOP leaders can get away with supporting the reforms in its place.

[Texsox]

Tex, not every illegal immigrant in this country picks crops or busses tables. How many meat packing pants have been raided lately? Those are good paying jobs that people lined for inthe hundreds when they were available. We talked about all this in other threads, I have no problems with a viable guest worker program, but then they wouldn't be here ILLEGALLY then, would they. Anyone not here on a guest worker program should be promptly shown the way out of the country.

 

Actually those meat packing plants have some of the largest turnover rates in the country. There is a huge shortage of workers. And, once again, there are not as lot of unemployed citizens willing to move to the plants to work, and not a lot of communities that tolerate a meat packing plant in their area.

 

Again, look at this scenario, a student arrives from overseas to attend a US University, they go on to receive a coveted spot in a US Med school, they stay here and earn a nice salary in the US. So far, we don't have a complaint in the world. But when they want to hire a yardman or babysitter WHOA!! That's a job an American can do. We want Americans working for the foreign professionals. What a f***ed up system.

 

What we need is a guest worker program that makes it easier for American businesses to hire minimum wage labor from overseas and much, much, harder to hire skilled labor from overseas. The guest workers should have very limited benefits, and most of those should be tied into what benefits America the most.

[EvilMonkey]

Politico is reporting that Obama is planning to bail on the all in one bill and go for an incremental approach. It may not be a bad thing in the end, because it makes opposition for the sake of opposition that much harder. If he puts off the public option for another year, then there's no way that most key GOP leaders can get away with supporting the reforms in its place.

If the reforms are worth supporting. I would favor this approach as well, since there may be a few nuggets of usefullness in the huge-ass bills out there now, but they are hard to find in that massive blob of lawyer-speak and ambiguity. This will also make it harder for Dems to sneak stuff in, unless they try to introduce and vote without reading things in the middle of the night. However, how much of a political hit will Obama take for dropping the all in one bill? His most rabid supporters on this (the crazy left) are also the most vocal, and knowing how the fringes on each side brook no compromise, they will surely see this as defeat.

[Texsox]

You bring this up every damn time. And it's now a fallacy - Americans WILL do it. f***, I might have to pretty soon, and I'm not joking. There's no other jobs.

 

Second, as Alpha commented, and I have repeatedly and repeatedly, guest worker programs are fine. But then they will not be subject to health care availability, nor should they be.

 

I know seven white collar professionals out of work. Two for over a year. So far none have been willing to take jobs for significantly less than they were making. And certainly not willing to move to Omaha and work in a processing plant. Yet only one blames it on H1B professionals that have been hired from overseas that are actually working the same job they work.

[Rex Kickass]

If the reforms are worth supporting. I would favor this approach as well, since there may be a few nuggets of usefullness in the huge-ass bills out there now, but they are hard to find in that massive blob of lawyer-speak and ambiguity. This will also make it harder for Dems to sneak stuff in, unless they try to introduce and vote without reading things in the middle of the night. However, how much of a political hit will Obama take for dropping the all in one bill? His most rabid supporters on this (the crazy left) are also the most vocal, and knowing how the fringes on each side brook no compromise, they will surely see this as defeat.

 

I'm not opposed to incrementalism. I think its working very well for a number of political issues, marriage equality included. I'm only opposed to it if Obama drops health care altogether once something is passed.

[kapkomet]

They are also going to push the most pretencious (sp?) issues until January, unless they get someone to seat Teddy's old seat. They're slowing down because they know if they use reconciliation there's going to be TREMENDOUS backlash and they don't have 60 votes anymore. That's the main reason - they don't have the votes and they are now going to "slow down". Imagine that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

ah how I love hypocrisy:

Republicans in Congress have raised the specter of a bloated, "socialized," bureaucrat-run nightmare of a health care system as a means of undermining the White House's effort at a systematic overhaul. And yet, as Democratic sources are now pointing out, when medical crisis hit close to home, many of these same officials turned to a government-run hospital for their own intensive care and difficult surgeries.

 

Take, for instance, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who warned that "a government takeover of health care" would "take away the care that people already have [and] are perfectly satisfied with." In its place, the senator said, would be "a system in which care and treatment will be either delayed or denied."

 

That was July 2009. In February 2003, McConnell actually went to one of those government-run institutions (where treatment is, apparently, "either delayed or denied") for a procedure of his own. The Kentucky Republican traveled to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, to have an elective coronary artery bypass surgery after it had been revealed that he had arterial blockages.

.........

Senator John McCain, (R-Ariz.) for instance, recently applauded the town hall protesters who were, in his words, revolting "against a government-run health system." That was August 2009. In May of 2000, McCain had surgery at the Bethesda Naval Hospital to remove a potentially lethal melanoma from his left temple.

 

Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), meanwhile, has warned of the rationing of care, expensive costs, and reduced quality that would come under a government-run health care plan. In April 2003, however, he traveled to Bethesda Naval Hospital to undergo hip replacement surgery in an attempt to alleviate degenerative arthritis in his left hip.

 

Senator George Voinovich, (R-Ohio), has declared that a "bureaucratic Washington-run government plan is not the answer" to the nation's health care needs. In June 2003, the Ohio Republican (who is retiring from the Senate in 2010) went to Bethesda Naval Hospital to have a pacemaker installed.

..........

conservatives have long used the notion of "socialized medicine" to defeat health care reform efforts -- even though when it comes to the flagship Naval Hospital just miles away, the worries about bureaucratic nightmares, low quality care, and long lines seem to be wiped away.

[Texsox]

ah how I love hypocrisy:

 

Not a fair comparison, we ain't getting that same level of care, and neither are the rank and file servicemen and vets.

[bmags]

They are also going to push the most pretencious (sp?) issues until January, unless they get someone to seat Teddy's old seat. They're slowing down because they know if they use reconciliation there's going to be TREMENDOUS backlash and they don't have 60 votes anymore. That's the main reason - they don't have the votes and they are now going to "slow down". Imagine that.

 

pretty sure you mean contentious

[EvilMonkey]

ah how I love hypocrisy:

Find a way to give every American the kind of care the Senators get for the same cost and you may have something. Nice stretch.

[southsider2k5]

Find a way to give every American the kind of care the Senators get for the same cost and you may have something. Nice stretch.

 

More like find a way to make medical personnel work for military wages and you have something.

[Balta1701]

More like find a way to make medical personnel work for military wages and you have something.

Or just let us all buy in to some other country's system.

[southsider2k5]

Or just let us all buy in to some other country's system.

 

There is a way to do that...

[Balta1701]

There is a way to do that...

I tried for a job at Oxford but they wanted the position filled before my defense date. Just off the lower costs it'd be worth it - for the same exact position you take home an extra $4200 per year on average.

[Balta1701]

I wonder what the data is for Medicare. Considering it costs less per person.

California HMOs reject one out of five medical claims, according to an analysis by the California Nurses Assn. of data the companies submit to the state.

 

The analysis -- the first of its kind based on state government-collected data -- concluded that from 2002 through June 30, 2009, five of the largest insurers in the state rejected 31.2 million claims for medical care, or 21% of all claims.

 

The denial rates ranged from a low for Aetna of 6.5% to a high for PacifiCare of 39.6%, for the first half of 2009. Anthem Blue Cross, the state's largest for-profit health plan, and Kaiser, the state's largest nonprofit plan, each rejected 28% of claims during the first six months of this year, according to the study. And Cigna denied 33%.

That's a huge rate for everyone but Aetna. Basically 1/3 or higher.

[kapkomet]

Rejected for what? Are these denials (coding errors or some other issue) or ineligible charges? There's a lot more underneath this then the surface would suggest, IMO.

 

[Balta1701]

Rejected for what? Are these denials (coding errors or some other issue) or ineligible charges? There's a lot more underneath this then the surface would suggest, IMO.

Of course there's a lot under that. But that doesn't mean there's no value to the data.

[kapkomet]

Of course there's a lot under that. But that doesn't mean there's no value to the data.

I can tell you from what I remember, PacifiCare was the worst about stupid denials. They just wanted to stretch out payment.

 

This was my point a few days ago that data honestly doesn't mean crap - and this is one of those stories where people can infer the wrong things.

 

[Balta1701]

I can tell you from what I remember, PacifiCare was the worst about stupid denials. They just wanted to stretch out payment.

 

This was my point a few days ago that data honestly doesn't mean crap - and this is one of those stories where people can infer the wrong things.

And "Stupid denials" is exactly the point. They're rejecting a certain percentage as a standard policy and then fighting a little bit whenever the person challenges, and hoping they wont' challenge it. That's the point of this whole thing.

[kapkomet]

And "Stupid denials" is exactly the point. They're rejecting a certain percentage as a standard policy and then fighting a little bit whenever the person challenges, and hoping they wont' challenge it. That's the point of this whole thing.

That's not how it works. The "battle" is between the insurance and the doctor's billing offices, and most of the time just require a resubmission. Most of these denials are clerical errors or CPT (medical codes) that are not consistent with treatments. The patient never even knows about it until EOBs go out WAY after the fact, but they aren't denied because they're trying to throw people under the bus as you're suggesting. By then, they're paid for and it doesn't matter.

[Balta1701]

That's not how it works. The "battle" is between the insurance and the doctor's billing offices, and most of the time just require a resubmission. Most of these denials are clerical errors or CPT (medical codes) that are not consistent with treatments. The patient never even knows about it until EOBs go out WAY after the fact, but they aren't denied because they're trying to throw people under the bus as you're suggesting. By then, they're paid for and it doesn't matter.

But...that takes time and money.

[southsider2k5]

And "Stupid denials" is exactly the point. They're rejecting a certain percentage as a standard policy and then fighting a little bit whenever the person challenges, and hoping they wont' challenge it. That's the point of this whole thing.

 

Um, you don't think the government does the same thing in their programs? My dad is a DAV who has gone through this same crap in other agencies, including the VA and Social Security. He had to hire an attorney who took 1/3 of his back payments to get his SS money, because the government had rejected him for no reason. He has also had to go through the VA appeals process numerous times over the years.

[EvilMonkey]

I am on a conference call about health care reform with Debbie Halvorson right now, been listening for the last 80 minutes so far. Mostly softball questions being lobbed at her, but a few tougher ones got thru. When asked about the section where the house bill says it will cover all aspects of reproductive services and would that cover abortions, her reply was "There is no mention of abortions in this bill, so it won't be covered". When the guy tried to follow up with "According to Democrats, abortion is considered reproductive services", he was cut off in the middle of the word 'services' and the question ignored. Then a few callers later, someone confronted her with the exact wording where it says "you shall" and she flat out denied that the words existed, even tho I pulled it up and looked as she was denying it. When someone called and said that it seemed to her that some want to 'give' healthcare to others for free even tho her and her husband have saved and sacraficed to pay for their own, she insisted that nobody was gonna get anything for free, but that there would be 'credits' available for those that couldn't afford it. Follow up question was "well, isn't that GIVING them stuff for free?", totally ignored. A few good questions, a few stupid questions, alot of double talk.