Nothing we do with insurance will keep us from going bankrupt if health care provider costs keep rising out of control.

I dunno, sounds rather big brotherish to me. Plus what are you going to do if a homeless person shows up in the ER? Going to fine them? How are they going to pay the fine?

I certainly agree with "de-complexify, un-obfuscate." I find it interesting the one person (least the one person I know of) in the insurance business in this thread stated-

Which I read as saying, correct me if I'm wrong rahl, more education from the insurance company directed at the insured and doctors would help. How about making the system less complicated? Wouldn't that be easier on everyone? From my personal experience I firmly believe the system is complicated and convoluted intentionally. I can't remember the number of times I heard "Oh, I see what the problem is here, form 27FJ was incomplete or filled out incorrectly. This claim will have to be be resubmitted." (yeah, I pulled that form number out of my ass... just can't remember details like this) Often I was told this several times on the same claim and by several I mean like 20+ sometimes. I'd call the Dr's office, they'd swear they resubmitted, I'd get a bill, call the Dr again, they'd swear... well you get the idea. It got to where I knew that once a claim was denied I had 90-110 days before a call and letter from a collection agency would be arriving. also had a dam good understanding of my rights regarding collection agencies and tactics. Oregon has a law where as long as one person in a conversation knows it's being recorded if it is recorded no law is being broken. I informed many people of this law half way through a phone conversation that became hostile. I don't respond nicely to statements like "look you dead beat son of a bitch..." Don't quote me but I think it's ORS 133.721. When you inform a person who's been yelling at you for 5mins. of this law the result is often dead silence, "umm... really?" or just "click, dial tone."

This is why I think there should be more over sight on policy issuers. This whole "form 27FJ wasn't submitted correctly" is pure crap. I think they just try to wear you down until you're so sick and worn out if you have the means you'll just pay it yourself.

Edit-

Think that should read ORS 165.540.-

It's that "unless consent is given by at least one participant." that's relevant.

Alot of insurance companies are trying to educate better. They have a rep from the Insurer go to a company and do a group meeting explaining their policies and proper place to go for treatment, this is a step in the right direction. I know it seems easy to say make insurance easier and less complex but it's not that easy, and it's not done intentionally, of course I'm in the industry so I guess I may take for granted how hard it is. It's like the financial market, I don't understand stocks and such at all, I've taken CE courses on it but I just don't get it, Insurance I do. Also I stated this in one of the threads but if your having trouble with the insurance company either go to your HR director or contact your insurance broker yourself. It's in the best interest of the broker to make sure your claim is paid because it's his account and he wants repeat business when it comes time for your companies renewal

I think you'd have to have provisions for that.

"Keep your laws off my body" has been a rallying cry of liberals, and the pro-choice movement in particular, for decades. The concept is that medical procedures are so intensely personal that government, regardless of its intent, should not be involved in the decisions.

Yet when it comes to the Democrats' health care plans, liberal supporters of keeping the law off their bodies now are saying, "put your laws all over my body." Government will make medical decisions not only as to the womb, but every other body part; and not just that, government policies as to which procedures and medicines are cost-effective will decide life and death. Imagine what will happen if/when a pro-life, evangelical fundamentalist ever gets into power. Corporations (and their ideologies) will be in charge of your body.

Are we able to think beyond today? Do we really want the government all over our bodies just because we like the current President and Congress? Then be prepared to live with the consequences when you have a President and Congress you don't like.

I don't see how you can make the claim that it's not done intentionally. Maybe to your knowledge or in your company it's not but the company I dealt with was doing it intentionally. One of their reps flat out told me so... "the more of these we successfully deny the larger our bonus." How is that not intentional?

As for contacting your HR rep. that didn't work for me. They just referred me back to the insurance company, the same one dicking me around. I tried to find a broker, a VP of sales, a customer service manager... anyone who'd listen to reason. None of that got me out of a seriously uncomfortable ramming feeling sans reach around.

I finally started getting somewhere when I filed a complaint with the State of Oregon Insurance Board (think they might be a "division" now.) Though even that didn't stop me from having to get an attorney. He wrote three letters and filed one motion, they caved. Suddenly they were in fact responsible for the unpaid claims.

I often wonder how many people out there don't have the means to hire an attorney... and what happens to them.

---------- Post added at 12:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:09 PM ----------

I lived with the consequences of having a President and congress I didn't like for a solid eight years.

I don't see how any of this will have the government "all over" anyone's body. I never hear my parents complain about that with medicaid. I know Vet's who get VA care, never hear them make this compliant either.

powerclown

the reality of the current situation is that our choices are a) Let private, for-profit insurance companies make decisions about what procedures/medications I can have or b) Let the government handle it. Neither is ideal.

But since you brought it up, can you tell me how often countries like France or Japan or England see their government run health care plans altered by who is in power?

None of the proposals currently in place put coverage decisions solely at the hands of the government, and in any case something is always better than nothing, and they can't stop anyone from getting any procedure through supplemental insurance or anything like that. And in any case, minimal standards of benefits and so on are already regulated.

corporations are already "in charge of our bodies" in the context of the existing health care system.
corporations are also not accountable directly to anyone except shareholders and sometimes organized pressure groups, which typically either use pr to force change out of a desire to protect a brand, or they use the state to change the legal rules of the game.

i've never really understood the source of american conservative paranoia about the state, which if anything makes the spaces it acts upon *more* open to democratic processes by making it accountable through elections. in principle anyway.

corporate power is not accountable to anyone. the present configuration of the american health care system is a result of this unaccountable corporate power, in the context of which profit-seeking gets tangled up with providing health care.
one result of this entanglement is the entire problem of the uninsured that's one of the drivers of the debate.
another is the explosion of hospital bureaucracies, which are a fundamental problem for accessing health care.
another is the way "managed care" operates, which already does much of what conservative disinformation has persuaded them that they should worry about.

this is a surreal situation, the "debate" about health care, the "august revolt" of the incoherent right.

o yeah--it's always interesting to follow the money when the conservative apparatus gets going.
have a look at the organizations listed in this article: it's the usual suspects.

GOP seeks its revival in the revolt against Obama's healthcare plan -- latimes.com

The problem is what is the GOP's health care plan (and why didn't they implement it)? If it's things like HSAs that have horrible interest rates and lots of fees, or HRAs (that I have now) where my employer puts money in, but if I quit or get laid off, that goes away. They haven't proposed a simple thing like the Flexible savings accounts that are tax-free, NEVER EXPIRE (you lose all your money if you don't spend it that year now), and will give you at least a decent savings rate if you are young. I don't trust them to come up with a good plan for every American, not just the top 5% and the people who like to dream of getting to that level.

Then go after things like frivolous lawsuits, expand the good samaritan laws to cover unintentional and possibly avoidable minor medical mistakes (if they perform surgery on the wrong leg, then the patient should sue them, but the lawyers should be limited in the amount they can charge).

I'm not opposed to all of the GOP's ideas on health care reform, just how they try and make them benefit the banks and insurance companies. I'm also hoping that the Democrats will put limits on the health insurance companies though.

And I agree with Obama that the current state of health insurance in this country will only get worse in the next 10-20 years if nothing is done.

As a small C conservative Canadian who very much supports Universal Health Care, I have 1 question.....

Where are these townhall meetings and how do I get to go?

I'd love to see the BS that being hurled around by those on the right first hand. "Death Panels" (did Sarah Palin really come up with that term?) and how you'll all surely die if any sort of Health Care Reform was put into place.

As a goofy Canadian watching all the BS down south flow large, I have to say you yankees are pretty riled up about all of this. Watching Granny on the news getting into a shoving match with some reporter and how my country is constantly under attack where we are all dying in the Streets in Toronto. :eek:

In reading about what Obama is proposing, he's not going nearly far enough to be sucessful. All he's talking about is establishing a government run Insurance plan. He isn't even dreaming about regulating the industry (taking over the hospitals, and eliminating private health care clinics as they did in the Great White north back in the days of Tommy Douglas.

Unless Obama figures that once he establishes a gov't run insurance company that everyone will eventually end up there, he really isn't talking about UHC now is he.

I guess if he ever suggested nationalizing the Health Care Industry in order to cut profit out of the equation (and the fat cats that go with it) people would just plan start burning the joint down.

Palin takes Control of the Debate
 

Obama has had three town hall meeting in the past week, to sell his plan.
He has had nationally televised press conferences on health care to sell his plan.
He has written an op. ed. piece, to sell his plan.
He makes national radio addresses, to sell his plan.
He has a party in control of Congress, to sell his plan (and to pass it).
He has a WH press secretary to sell his plan.
He has a Health and Human Resources Secretary to sell his plan.
He spent about two years campaigning, including selling his health care plan.
He has the majority of Americans wanting heath care reform.
And what happened last week?

Basically, Sara Palin dominated the debate with a one paragraph tweet, with two words that shaped the debate! Using two words she crystalized the underlying concern of many Americans. In one tweet she got every political talk show in a tizzy. Using two words she will shape what the final bill will be, and she wasn't even really trying or was she? Wow, this woman is impressive.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h2...rah_palin1.jpg

Yep, two words "death panel." Which was and is a lie.

Yeah, and all it took was a gross distortion of what is really taking place, and millions of gullible people who are ready to check their brains at the door in order to follow party directions...

How can anyone think this is a positive thing is beyond me

Ah...such is the circus of American politics.

Can one really win debates in American politics using mythology?

The only thing this accomplishes is that now the Obama administration needs to be more clear about what the bill aims to do. Palin is only impressive by accident and ignorance in this case. What's really impressive is the media's continued stock in her.

We all know Palin couldn't shape a debate with Michelangelo's chisel.

Besides, she didn't even write it. She has a ghostwriter twittering for her.

Let's run Palin's Ghostwriter for president in 2012!

An aside:

Welcome back, Baraka_Guru. I do hope you didn't become too much of a krispy kritter.

The death panel thing is bizarre. I find it hard to fathom that people could be so ignorant as to believe that type of rhetoric.

Mythology and circus certainly are good terms to describe the current state of affairs.

This is exactly why individualism is bullshit.

People have been saying it was a lie from the time it came out. If it was simply a lie, why did it get so much traction? Why, is the provision regarding living wills being changed? Why is the "public option" all of a sudden being reconsidered, clarified or whatever Obama's spokes people are doing and did over the weekend?

---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 PM ----------

I still have not received an answer to my concern about how government is going to allocate care given limited resources? It seems the left has made a false argument concerning living wills, that is not really the point.

---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

Is it "mythology" that we currently have panels that arbitrate what is "medically necessary"? Is it "mythology" that standards of care are established and would be expanded?

Are you saying Obama's planning, strategy, execution, evaluation, modification abilities are a failure? I am.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

It could be a good contest against Obama's teleprompter.:eek:

These last few posts have me convinced that ace has been messing with us all along. Grade A trolling if it's true. I believed you for awhile

Again, we can pretend people are ignorant or we can address the issue. Obama so far has been ignoring the issue, it is clearly not going away, or is it? If there is no public option, the issue of government control of how medical resources does go away, at least for those who have the choice of non-government controlled health care.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

Could you elaborate?

Nah, I'm with Derwood. Let's not feed the troll.

No. The mythology is in the words you correctly pointed out as powerful and moving: "death panel." In a sense, in Canada we have panels that arbitrate what is medically necessary and we have standards of care that are constantly being corrected and expanded. Where is Canada's "death panel"? Britain's? Australia's? (Or any other industrialized nation's besides the U.S. that happens to have some form of universal health care.) What's the myth here?

I'm calling the Palin effect a good thing and a bad thing. It's good in that it forces Obama to be even more clear than before about the bill. It's a bad thing in that he now has an even greater challenge: he has to cut through the sensationalized bullshit that Palin has stirred up to do it. I'm not sure if this is a result of Obama's failure to do a good job of formulating and executing the bill, or if it's more because there are too many people creating distortion.

again, the conservatives aren't debating in the same context as other folk. again conservatives are interested in news cycles. they want to win news cycle conflicts and one device for doing that is memes.
"death panel" is a meme. it sounds ominous. it's short. it refers to itself and not the world.
conservatives like repeating it.
conservatives like short statements.
news programmers like short statements. it's hard to give the illusion of having a handle on a world that's very complicated and moves around all the time. short statements and pithy camerawork are good for that.
if you provide a consistent illusion of having a handle on the world, consumers may well stay in their chairs until the vital advertising begins.

in that advertising, you see some of the effects of the fact that news outlets get quite alot of money from the insurance industry.
conservative organizations right now are getting quite alot of money from the insurance industry.



scary scary bad: something's happening out there but i don't know what it is. o look, here are some products that i desire. scary scary bad world. nice shiny consumer dreamscape.

death panel.
great stuff.

Jayzus Christ, this thread went from entertaining to bat shit crazy.

I stated several times that the terms "death panel" are probably not appropriate. My point here is more regarding how the underlying issue was crystallized by Palin to spite the best efforts of the administration and the media to frame the debate. There is something here. It is surprising to me why there has been no legitimate response to this real concern.

From what you suggest it seems Canadian's are o.k. with how government allocates limited health care resources.

It is never bad for people to have their fears addressed in an open and honest manner. I don't understand why people don't think this is an honest fear.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

Either you need conservatives or you don't. If you need them, you have to address their needs and concerns. If you don't, screw 'em. How is that for a short statement.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Could you elaborate?

I don't deny the concern is real. Palin's quaint centerpiece is what I take issue with.

We work with representatives in the government. If enough of us want change, we pressure our respective parties to foster it. Many of us would like to see improvements to the system, but few of us would want it taken away.

It's not an honest fear when people cling to the idea of "death panels." I agree that people's fears should be addressed openly, but it's not all that cut and dry when they're based on propaganda.

we've been elaborating for pages and pages across several threads and you either don't get it or are the most purposely obtuse person on the planet. it's not worth the effort anymore

Ace,
So your point is there has been no "legitimate response" to Palin's lie beyond calling it a lie?

Don Imus captured the same attention when he used the words "nappy-headed ho's" But that didn't make him a genius. The reason this made so much news is because the media loves sensationalism and her comments were definitely sensational. The facts that 1) there are no death panels, 2) the language that she is talking about was written and placed in the bill by a republican just goes to show how empty her statement was.

The media has long given up on reporting truth and facts and has now moved into the realm of tabloids. It is quite sad actually.

Just for clarity, those of us who oppose the bill (in its current form) don't care who wrote it. The words on their own merits are objectionable, regardless of whether a Retardican or a Dumbocrat wrote it.

You continue to reinforce my point. You ( and everyone else) are basically saying my concern is based on propaganda. Whatever a fear is based on, if it is a fear it will affect everything that follows from it.

And don't you think it is fanciful to suggest that a one paragraph tweet from a non-credible, unemployed politician can shape a national debate on health care?

Palin didn't crystalize. She LIED. And you appear to APPROVE of that.

People's fears aren't being addressed, they're being manipulated. This isn't discourse, it's a cage match. It's not politics, it's the WWF.

ALL that stands between America and a workable, modern health system is the vastly wealthy corporations that oppose it, the mouthpieces willing to tell lies about the proposals, and the gullible people willing to believe those lies.

You stated I am trolling. This is a new charge against me. I was just wondering what you meant by that. Given your response I am going to assume that rather than a thoughtful engagement of ideas, you prefer a personal attack. whatever you think about me the choice to ignore me is yours. If the powers that be want to ban my participation here, that choice is theirs.

Is there a national debate on health care anymore? What Palin did was dangerous. Do you honestly think her effect had a rational impact on the discourse?

Palin used the terms "death panel", I don't. What her point was, and what my point is - how is the government going to allocate limited health care resources. I stated that I do not trust Washington bureaucrats. This is my number one concern regarding the "public option". If someone has addressed that, please direct me to it - I have not seen it.

how often does that work out for people that can't afford auto insurance?

please, that policy idea is all wrong.

no, you lauded Palin for "addressing a legitimate fear", when said fear was completely fabricated by the opposition party

When Bush had US Attorney Generals fired, it was clearly political. When the Mayor of Chicago makes sure that the street he lives on gets cleared of snow first, it is clearly political. This nation has a history of political abuse or things that gives one pause. The issue of "medical necessity" or "standards of treatment" can easily mean one thing to one group of people and another to a different group of people. Our government has a history of not putting in controls to make sure that stuff does not happen. I have no interest in turning over the complete and total medical care of my family to people in Washington. You can call that irrational, it may be irrational, I don't care - it simply is how I feel. I will never support a public option if this issue is not addressed.