U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[drl2]

Here in Delaware we love ol' Crazy Joe. He's our only famous comedian!

[drl2]

If Bush went to church or supported a "faith based initiative" my left leaning friends would call him to task for it. If Obama goes to church, even an anti-semitic one, and INCREASES Bush's faith based initiatives, I here ZERO criticism from the left on that point. On RDF, the forums were riddled with discussion of Bush's faith based initiatives and how it's bringing on a theocracy. Obama expanded those same programs, and there was zero concern about it from the same people who were up in arms a year or two previously.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25473529/

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16 ... -anxiety16

Critics of Bush's faith-based initiative thought Obama had promised to end religious discrimination among social service groups taking federal money.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02 ... ith.based/

In the other corner are separation-of-church-and-state advocates and human-rights organizations that say the government must constitutionally compel these organizations to follow nondiscrimination laws if they accept federal funding. Anything less, they say, would at best be a violation of church-state separation and at worst an implicit endorsement of discrimination.

...

"The Bush administration's policies and initiatives that have allowed religious institutions to discriminate against [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual] Americans with public money are not consistent with the values espoused by President Obama and his Administration," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign said. "We are hopeful that the new administration will take the necessary steps to address this critical issue of fairness expeditiously."

And a notorious lefty:

The plan Obama proposes doesn't even make sense. If religious groups have a history of altruistic support for the needy, good for them and let them continue as they have…but funneling government funds through organizations that supposedly already have "faith-based" mechanisms for raising money seems superfluous. That's the only advantage these groups have, anyway — the ability to fleece the flock to fund their work. Being religious does not give any advantage in obtaining material outcomes.

End the faith-based initiatives. The government should only be supporting programs that work — at least, in my dreams of an efficient administration, anyway.

You'll also find plenty of criticism from the left on Obama's continuation of Bush's war & interrogation policies, etc. The right-wing canard that "they only complain about it when Bush does it" is just demonstrably not true.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can't wait till I get to pay 15.5% of my income for health insurance! Wow! It'll be nice to have that "right." Gotta get us some o' that over here in Ameriland.

As the only wage earner for a family of four, I already do.

That's not the norm. But, if so, then what's the difference? Nobody is offering you any savings, apparently, when it comes to government health care.

Two of us are covered through an employer. Out of pocket $200 a month. Vision is 100% covered, including either one set of contacts or one pair of glasses per year. The dental is about the same as yours, but not a big deal - a dental visit is not that expensive - and what do you want? Free dental care for all? They don't have that in Europe either.

And that's if I don't actually use it. That's before deductibles and co-pays and assuming the insurance company doesn't reject any treatments. There's dental coverage but it only pays 50-75% of the cost of a dental visit. I'll probably need to add vision coverage this year as my eyes aren't what they used to be, so bump that % up a little more just to get a discount on eyewear. Yay, free market.

You get free eyewear in other countries? I wear glasses and contacts. I know how much they cost. They're dirt cheap here in the US. Sometimes you can get 2 for 1, and even with my prescription, which is EXTREMELY near sighted, I can get them for under $200. You think I should get free glasses?

[Coito ergo sum]

If Bush went to church or supported a "faith based initiative" my left leaning friends would call him to task for it. If Obama goes to church, even an anti-semitic one, and INCREASES Bush's faith based initiatives, I here ZERO criticism from the left on that point. On RDF, the forums were riddled with discussion of Bush's faith based initiatives and how it's bringing on a theocracy. Obama expanded those same programs, and there was zero concern about it from the same people who were up in arms a year or two previously.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25473529/

There's not an ounce of criticism of it in the above article. It's straight reporting.

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/16 ... -anxiety16

Critics of Bush's faith-based initiative thought Obama had promised to end religious discrimination among social service groups taking federal money.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02 ... ith.based/

In the other corner are separation-of-church-and-state advocates and human-rights organizations that say the government must constitutionally compel these organizations to follow nondiscrimination laws if they accept federal funding. Anything less, they say, would at best be a violation of church-state separation and at worst an implicit endorsement of discrimination.

...

"The Bush administration's policies and initiatives that have allowed religious institutions to discriminate against [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual] Americans with public money are not consistent with the values espoused by President Obama and his Administration," Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign said. "We are hopeful that the new administration will take the necessary steps to address this critical issue of fairness expeditiously."

And a notorious lefty:

The plan Obama proposes doesn't even make sense. If religious groups have a history of altruistic support for the needy, good for them and let them continue as they have…but funneling government funds through organizations that supposedly already have "faith-based" mechanisms for raising money seems superfluous. That's the only advantage these groups have, anyway — the ability to fleece the flock to fund their work. Being religious does not give any advantage in obtaining material outcomes.

End the faith-based initiatives. The government should only be supporting programs that work — at least, in my dreams of an efficient administration, anyway.

You'll also find plenty of criticism from the left on Obama's continuation of Bush's war & interrogation policies, etc. The right-wing canard that "they only complain about it when Bush does it" is just demonstrably not true.

The amount of criticism is miniscule and muted in comparison. And, I was, of course, in my post referring to "my left leaning friends," and hadn't raised the issue of the media in general in the post to which you responded. Among the run-of-the-mill liberal friend of mine, and most folks posting on this board and former RDF-ers, there is a clear double standard.

Yes, you've identified a couple muted critical quotes. But, these turn out to be exceptions that prove the rule.

A glaring example is Obama's recent appointment of General Betrayus to lead the Afghan war. Moveon.org took down all reference to the "Betray Us" ads, wherein they led the charge of the left, repeated by most of my left leaning, liberal friends, that he was a liar and "cooked the books" on behalf the administration. Now, of course, it's just fine that General Betrayus should lead the Afghan War. I guess he's not a liar and book-cooker anymore?

Similarly, where is the loud criticism of the following:
(1) warrantless wiretapping: Obama Administration still does it. There aren't protests with folks screaming at Obama, and the liberals are very quiet about it.
(2) Guantanamo: still open -- 18 months after Obama took office.
(3) Rendition: Still US policy and still done.
(4) Patriot Act: Renewed. No cacophony of shrill cries of the complete loss of all our civil rights when the "good guys" are in office.
(5) Troops still in Iraq: 18 months after Obama took office, and nothing has changed - nobody is camped outside of his house though.
(6) Troops still in Afghanistan, and he engaged in a troop surge: Little to no criticism from liberals about amping up Afghanistan's War with a "troop surge" that liberals ranted about would "never work" in Iraq.
(7) No more talk of failed policy in Iraq: Now, we have liberals sitting quietly while Biden declares victory (of course during the Bush years, we had already "lost" the war). Now we're winning! Although the policy and practice over there has not changed.
(8) indefinite detention. 18 months later......right? Same guys, same jail cells....

Remember, 1, 2, 8 and 3, were WAR CRIMES according to the liberals, when Bush was in office, and Bush, Cheney and the gang were to be prosecuted for doing those things, among other things. Now, no calls from liberals to prosecute the current administration, who is doing the same thing.

[tattuchu]

I don't see that at all from most of my left-leaning friends and acquaintances. Once they oppose someone, they seem to oppose everything they say or do. George Bush, for example, couldn't say the "sky is blue" and have folks take his word for it. That's why there are lot more stupid and juvenile little nick-names fired from the left to the right - we get nonsense like "Amerikkkans" and "Republikkkans" and "Repugnicans" and just "Repugs." And, others were General Be-tray-us, and stuff like that. Not as much of that goes the other way.

What an odd thing to say, since the exact opposite seems to me to be true

Anyway, so the health care bill finally passed, right? In an emasculated form or something? Can someone tell me what if anything has changed? What are the practical implications? How is this going to affect me? Will it affect me in a positive or negative way, or no way at all?

[Martok]

Anyway, so the health care bill finally passed, right? In an emasculated form or something? Can someone tell me what if anything has changed? What are the practical implications? How is this going to affect me? Will it affect me in a positive or negative way, or no way at all?

Nothing will change for the next few years. Insurance companies can still deny coverage and they can still drop people when you get sick. Since no public option was included insurance companies can jack the rates up at will.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't see that at all from most of my left-leaning friends and acquaintances. Once they oppose someone, they seem to oppose everything they say or do. George Bush, for example, couldn't say the "sky is blue" and have folks take his word for it. That's why there are lot more stupid and juvenile little nick-names fired from the left to the right - we get nonsense like "Amerikkkans" and "Republikkkans" and "Repugnicans" and just "Repugs." And, others were General Be-tray-us, and stuff like that. Not as much of that goes the other way.

What an odd thing to say, since the exact opposite seems to me to be true

You don't see it on these boards do you? Nasty, snarky comments are rife from the liberals here - Merkins, Amerikkans, Repugs, Repugnicans, General Be-tray-Us, all that sort of thing. When do you see similar stuff going the other way? I've used a few to illustrate the point in response to this namecalling - "Demonrats" I think I bandied about a couple times, but always in response to the nonsense namecalling.

Anyway, so the health care bill finally passed, right? In an emasculated form or something?

Yes, it passed, but it wasn't emasculated.

Can someone tell me what if anything has changed?

Most of it hasn't taken effect yet, which is precisely the plan on the part of its proponents, so that the 2012 elections could go by and the Democrats could claim that the sky didn't fall.

What are the practical implications?

You will be required by law to buy health insurance. You can do that either by working for an employer who provides some or all of your health care costs, or you can pay for it yourself. If you make less than $44,000 (as an individual, different amounts for families), then you may be eligible for some government assistance (although they will also take into account your assets, savings and other finances before telling you what assistance you're eligible for...). At the high end of $44,000 you get very little assistance, and it is a sliding scale down to the level where Medicaid kicks in.

How is this going to affect me?

You must buy insurance, or get a job with an employer who provides it. Otherwise, you may face severe fines and penalties when you file your taxes, because you will be required to tell the IRS who you are insured by. Failure to pay the fines and penalties are lumped in with a failure to pay taxes, and subject to criminal penalties including possible jail time.

Will it affect me in a positive or negative way, or no way at all?

That depends on who you are. If you are working for an employer that provides health insurance, it will likely negatively impact you. That's because the new plan will significantly raise the cost of health insurance (since insurers can't refuse based on preexisting conditions, and other such costly provisions). So, employers will either cancel their insurance plans, or raise the cost required of employees. Many employers have already gone on record as indicating that they will have to take such action when the plan goes fully into effect.

If you are poor and would have been covered by Medicaid anyway, it won't really effect you because you'll still get free health care.

If you are a small business owner, you're going to get it in the nuts, because your cost of insurance will go through the roof.

If you are a healthy individual making $45,000 or more with no kids and no spouse, then you will be mandated to buy health insurance and the cost will be much higher than it is now. Now, a younger worker making in the mid-$40,000 range who is relatively healthy can bet insurance with a $3500 deductible usually from about $150 to $300 a month. After this all takes effect, that single person will pay more like 17% of their gross, per the CBO estimates from November 2009, or thereabouts.

[drl2]

Can't wait till I get to pay 15.5% of my income for health insurance! Wow! It'll be nice to have that "right." Gotta get us some o' that over here in Ameriland.

As the only wage earner for a family of four, I already do.

That's not the norm. But, if so, then what's the difference? Nobody is offering you any savings, apparently, when it comes to government health care.

It's the norm around here, at least in terms of pure $. I pay about the same as most others I've talked to in this area for similar coverage. At my previous employer I paid about $160 a month less, but would get higher deductibles, higher co-pays, limited support for "out-of-network" doctor visits, and the backing of a company that's so notorious for weaseling out of payment that they've been dropped by almost every doctor's office that isn't affiliated with the local medical services near-monopoly.

Two of us are covered through an employer. Out of pocket $200 a month. Vision is 100% covered, including either one set of contacts or one pair of glasses per year. The dental is about the same as yours, but not a big deal - a dental visit is not that expensive - and what do you want? Free dental care for all? They don't have that in Europe either.

"a dental visit is not that expensive" ??

Spoken like someone who doesn't have two young kids who will likely need braces at some point.

There are varying degrees of dental coverage in Europe and elsewhere; in a number of countries the cost is subsidized. Found this example cost chart on the wikipedia page for "Dental Tourism":

Procedure United States Mexico Hungary Poland (&)India Thailand
Implants, with crown $1990 to $5,000 $990 $1000 $900 $600 $1700
Veneers At least $800 to 1200 $369 $360 $450 $220 $240
Root canal $699 to $1300 $299 to $329 $60 $150 to $200 $80 $90 to $200
Crowns $750 to $1,000 $299 $285 $280 to $ 800 $80 $210 to $390
Bonding $150 to $300 $70 $70 $60 $25 to $30 $80

[Coito ergo sum]

Can't wait till I get to pay 15.5% of my income for health insurance! Wow! It'll be nice to have that "right." Gotta get us some o' that over here in Ameriland.

As the only wage earner for a family of four, I already do.

That's not the norm. But, if so, then what's the difference? Nobody is offering you any savings, apparently, when it comes to government health care.

It's the norm around here, at least in terms of pure $. I pay about the same as most others I've talked to in this area for similar coverage. At my previous employer I paid about $160 a month less, but would get higher deductibles, higher co-pays, limited support for "out-of-network" doctor visits, and the backing of a company that's so notorious for weaseling out of payment that they've been dropped by almost every doctor's office that isn't affiliated with the local medical services near-monopoly.

Pure $ as in out of YOUR pocket?

Two of us are covered through an employer. Out of pocket $200 a month. Vision is 100% covered, including either one set of contacts or one pair of glasses per year. The dental is about the same as yours, but not a big deal - a dental visit is not that expensive - and what do you want? Free dental care for all? They don't have that in Europe either.

"a dental visit is not that expensive" ??

A cleaning? Not really. What's expensive to you? $100?

Spoken like someone who doesn't have two young kids who will likely need braces at some point.

A dental VISIT - checkup and cleaning. That's not too expensive. I go all the time.

Obviously procedures like braces, and the like are more money.

There are varying degrees of dental coverage in Europe and elsewhere; in a number of countries the cost is subsidized. Found this example cost chart on the wikipedia page for "Dental Tourism":

Procedure United States Mexico Hungary Poland (&)India Thailand
Implants, with crown $1990 to $5,000 $990 $1000 $900 $600 $1700
Veneers At least $800 to 1200 $369 $360 $450 $220 $240
Root canal $699 to $1300 $299 to $329 $60 $150 to $200 $80 $90 to $200
Crowns $750 to $1,000 $299 $285 $280 to $ 800 $80 $210 to $390
Bonding $150 to $300 $70 $70 $60 $25 to $30 $80

If you've got dental insurance that the cost to you of American procedures are lower than shown in that table.

[tattuchu]

Thanks, Coito. I live in Massachusetts, so health insurance is already mandatory. I get it through my employer. I'm not so sure rates will go up. Insurance companies may be forces to cover everyone (god forbid they should be required to cover people who really need it), but on the other hand, they'll have more revenue coming in from others who are required to have insurance but won't use it (or use it often). It's not like every new insured person will be a drain on the companies' profits I donno. I guess we'll see. I certainly hope insurance premiums don't go up

About nasty liberal vs conservative comments...on this forum, I've no idea. I don't see it, but that's probably because I'm not reading the relevant threads. I was thinking more in general terms, from what I hear in the media, and from my own personal experience.

[drl2]

If Bush went to church or supported a "faith based initiative" my left leaning friends would call him to task for it. If Obama goes to church, even an anti-semitic one, and INCREASES Bush's faith based initiatives, I here ZERO criticism from the left on that point. On RDF, the forums were riddled with discussion of Bush's faith based initiatives and how it's bringing on a theocracy. Obama expanded those same programs, and there was zero concern about it from the same people who were up in arms a year or two previously.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25473529/

There's not an ounce of criticism of it in the above article. It's straight reporting.

Straight reporting about a left-leaning organization that's critical of exactly what you're accusing the left of not being critical of.

The amount of criticism is miniscule and muted in comparison. And, I was, of course, in my post referring to "my left leaning friends," and hadn't raised the issue of the media in general in the post to which you responded. Among the run-of-the-mill liberal friend of mine, and most folks posting on this board and former RDF-ers, there is a clear double standard.

Yes, you've identified a couple muted critical quotes. But, these turn out to be exceptions that prove the rule.

Well clearly I couldn't get in touch with your liberal friends to ask them, so I went for links to some well-known sites to point out some examples. I suspect that if I posted links to some of the Obama-critical lefty blogs I've read, you'd pass them off as not counting because they're only a few individuals.

A glaring example is Obama's recent appointment of General Betrayus to lead the Afghan war. Moveon.org took down all reference to the "Betray Us" ads, wherein they led the charge of the left, repeated by most of my left leaning, liberal friends, that he was a liar and "cooked the books" on behalf the administration. Now, of course, it's just fine that General Betrayus should lead the Afghan War. I guess he's not a liar and book-cooker anymore?

I think you'll find that most of the reaction to Obama's "promotion" of Petraeus has to do with it being a shrewd political move. There's no sudden expression of love for the war or for the general himself, just an acknowledgement that Obama made the best choice politically. Nevertheless, there has been criticism.

Obama: Hostage To Petraeus

Similarly, where is the loud criticism of the following:
(1) warrantless wiretapping: Obama Administration still does it. There aren't protests with folks screaming at Obama, and the liberals are very quiet about it.

NYT: Obama Must End Warrantless Wiretapping, Drop 'Ludicrous' National Security Claims

In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's


Obama Administration Defends Wiretapping Without Warrant — And Loses

In his decision, the judge also ruled the NSA’s entire program of surveillance on Americans without warrants to be illegal. Hats off to the judge!

With all of our focus on the day-to-day politics of bread-and-butter issues like health care and jobs, we’ve taken our eye off the continuing threats to our civil liberties posed by, yes, the Obama administration.

It would do progressives well to keep the heat on Obama in this arena, just as it would do Obama well to give up the power-mongering.

The criminal NSA eavesdropping program

US elections: Obama faces criticism over wiretapping bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-AlLlfb0iw

(2) Guantanamo: still open -- 18 months after Obama took office.

Obama and Guantanamo: A chronology of his broken promise

Obama and Guantánamo

I voted for Mr. Obama on the basis of his promise of real change. With respect to Guantánamo, there has been none. For this reason he has lost my vote.

Obama's Betrayal - His Guantanamo policy violates the principle of freedom.

(3) Rendition: Still US policy and still done.

What is Obama's Rendition Policy?

Rendition and torture must be completely outlawed, and legal detentions and trials by jury should be granted to even the most dangerous terrorism suspects. Without such changes, the US will not be able to claim the moral high-ground we seek to possess.

ACLU calls for CIA rendition probe

Obama's rendition shame

Senator Feingold Hits Obama Administration Over Extraordinary Rendition Decision

(4) Patriot Act: Renewed. No cacophony of shrill cries of the complete loss of all our civil rights when the "good guys" are in office.

Obama Versus Obama on the Patriot Act

Obama Sides with Republicans; PATRIOT Act Renewal Bill Passes Senate Judiciary Committee Minus Critical Civil Liberties Reforms

(5) Troops still in Iraq: 18 months after Obama took office, and nothing has changed - nobody is camped outside of his house though.
(6) Troops still in Afghanistan, and he engaged in a troop surge: Little to no criticism from liberals about amping up Afghanistan's War with a "troop surge" that liberals ranted about would "never work" in Iraq.
(7) No more talk of failed policy in Iraq: Now, we have liberals sitting quietly while Biden declares victory (of course during the Bush years, we had already "lost" the war). Now we're winning! Although the policy and practice over there has not changed.
(8) indefinite detention. 18 months later......right? Same guys, same jail cells....

Remember, 1, 2, 8 and 3, were WAR CRIMES according to the liberals, when Bush was in office, and Bush, Cheney and the gang were to be prosecuted for doing those things, among other things. Now, no calls from liberals to prosecute the current administration, who is doing the same thing.

My cut-and-paste muscles are getting sore and I'm hungry, so I'm not going to keep going with the point-by-point list of examples. I'll just summarize as follows:


Your
assertion
that
the
left
won't
criticize
Obama's
policies
is
utter
bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Thanks, Coito. I live in Massachusetts, so health insurance is already mandatory. I get it through my employer. I'm not so sure rates will go up.

How can they not? Just requiring coverage of preexisting conditions, adding more preventative treatment requirements, and getting rid of high deductible and aggregate maximum policies is going to raise the cost. You can't add all those billions in extra insurance payments without raising premiums. The money has to come from somewhere.

Insurance companies may be forces to cover everyone (god forbid they should be required to cover people who really need it),

If an insurance company is "forced to cover everyone" then it isn't insurance. Insurance covers risk. We should stop calling it insurance if everyone is covered. Then it's not insurance, it's just adding up the total cost of health care and shifting the cost based on ability to pay.

but on the other hand, they'll have more revenue coming in from others who are required to have insurance but won't use it (or use it often).

The math has been done by the CBO, and insurance premiums go up. This isn't magic or mystery. We know with reasonable degrees of certainty how much the new revenue will be, and how much the new expenses will be. That's why the CBO estimated around 15-18% of annual gross income will be spent on health insurance AFTER the "reform." Recall, nobody promised you LESS EXPENSIVE health insurance. Google it - try to find it. Always evasive and vague language is used --- the word "affordable" was used a lot. We'll get "affordable" health care. Well, "affordable" does NOT mean "lower than now." Nobody promised you "lower than now." Why? Because they can't deliver on that. "Affordable," however, can be measured based on whether the cost to you is less than the cost to other people. If you have to pay 15% of your income and someone else 18%, then your insurance is more affordable.

It's not like every new insured person will be a drain on the companies' profits I donno. I guess we'll see. I certainly hope insurance premiums don't go up

The Congressional Budget Office already published estimates that says they will.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not the only one who notices the double standard. Example, Bill Maher: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... -oil-spill

Maher asks, "Why isn't Obama getting more shit for this?"


And, the following quote makes the point:

But what Krugman forgets to point out is that if this happened when Bush was President, the Left and their media minions INCLUDING ALL the New York Times writers, columnists, and editorial department would have ALREADY blamed it on the President.

So, SNARK AWAY, Mr. Krugman.

We learned under George W. Bush that ALL disasters are the President's fault INCLUDING the natural ones like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts.

As a post facto aside, conservative talk radio host Mark Levin pointed out Thursday that it took the Obama administration eight days to do anything about this oil spill.

Why aren't media attacking Obama for this delay in much the same way they excoriated Bush for taking so long to respond to Katrina?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... z0t5qxtJjF

Another example - the General Petraeus appointment. What a crock of fucking shit. Not a liberal among us will criticize Obama's appointment of Petraeus, but they were all too happy to jump on the bandwagon and call him a "book cooker" and a "liar" when Bush appointed him.

In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial "General Betray Us" ad from its website.

For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March's troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.

Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.

With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn's website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... z0t5rTJR6j


Of course you'll find some here and there that will be exceptions, but you can't possibly not see the double standard (Katrina vs. BP) and (Petraeus then vs Petraeus now).

[Martok]

One penny holds up insurance benefits, leukemia patient claims

La Rosa Carrington has more than enough to worry about. She’s a single mother with two teenage daughters, she’s fighting a type of leukemia that requires five days of chemo a month for four months, and she lost her job in May.

So the last thing she needed was news that her health insurance benefits would be terminated because she hadn’t paid her premium in full. The shortfall? One penny.

“My medical bills are coming in like locusts, and you’re holding up my benefits because of one red cent?” an incredulous Carrington said from her hospital bed last week as she recalled her conversation with a customer service rep at Discovery Benefits, an employee benefits administrator based in North Dakota.

The problem started after Carrington, 52, lost her job as an admissions representative with Alta Colleges and COBRA kicked in. Under the federal COBRA law, people who lose their jobs under certain circumstances can temporarily keep their group health insurance from their employer, but they have to pick up a larger share of their premium — in her case, a little over $471.87 a month.

However, under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, those who meet the eligibility requirements pay just 35 percent of the full COBRA premium. Because Carrington had not yet received a bill showing what her payment would be with the discount, she whipped out a calculator, figured out that she owed $165.15 a month and sent a check for that amount to Discovery Benefits.

But Discovery Benefits determined she owed $165.16, and last week, she received a letter from the company telling her she was short on her premium and her coverage "has not been reinstated with your insurance carrier(s)." The letter, however, did not tell her how much she owed. She called Discovery Benefits and was aghast when she heard the amount.

“I said, ‘Are you kidding?’ How am I going to pay you a penny’”?

Carrington said she talked twice to a customer service representative, who told her it was policy that the penny be received before the benefits could be reinstated. Write a check or send a money order, Carrington said the representative told her.

“‘I’m in the hospital receiving chemotherapy; I can’t get you a money order,’” Carrington said she told the rep. “If this is how you treat people, you need spiritual training.”

Carrington then asked to speak to a supervisor, who reiterated the company’s policy and wouldn’t budge on the penny. Carrington also threatened to take her case to the media, and that’s why she thinks the supervisor called her back with some good news: The supervisor had pulled out her own calculator, done the math — and determined that Carrington was correct.

Suzanne Rehr, executive vice president for Discovery Benefits, offered a slightly different account. She wrote in an e-mail that COBRA software rounded up from $161.1545 — which is 35 percent of $471.87 — while Carrington rounded down, and said that “our staff member reached out to her supervisor and immediately received approval to pay the penny ... due to the rounding difference.”

No matter which account is accurate, Carrington has her health insurance back for now, but she said it took three hours out of a day when she wasn’t feeling good, and upset her so much that she got a headache and had trouble sleeping. She’s outraged, and when she gets well, she wants to push for a policy to prevent people going through what she went through.

There are, indeed, others who have had the penny-owed experience, said June Harryman, supervisory benefits adviser for the federal Employee Benefits Security Administration regional office in Kansas City.

“We’ve seen it before,” said Harryman, whose agency works on COBRA issues. “It’s not the first, and it won’t be the last.”

It turns out that employers that carry the coverage or their benefits administrators can legally waive a penny, or any shortage less than 10 percent of the premium, and she’s not sure why many don’t.

“It costs more to mail the notice than get the penny back,” she said.

But if the company decides it wants that penny, the person had better pay up, Harryman said.

For Carrington, the issue wasn't whether she could afford to pay a penny, but the principle.

"I'm so outraged and angry about this kind of pettiness in a billion dollar industry," she said.

Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/rosa-10 ... zz0t6KWGX2

Y

[Coito ergo sum]

Big deal. She owed a penny, and they took care of it after it was brought to their attention. She never lost coverage. Oh, the humanity! FSM forbid that anyone actually have to do manage their health insurance and work through the odd issue or two....

Now, bring in the State bureaucracy! That'll make everything so caring and "touchy feeling!" Nobody will ever have an issue when the State handles i!

Grandmother dies after NHS cancer treatment is withdrawn because she paid privately for life-extending drug

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... z0t6NxxLy7

Overstretched maternity units mean mothers face a 100-mile journey to have baby

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0t6PL6PjE

Hundreds of patients died needlessly at NHS hospital due to appalling care
Hundreds of patients may have died needlessly at an NHS hospital due to appalling standards of care, a damning report has found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... -care.html

Prove you're sick enough for surgery: Cash-strapped NHS trust introduces rationing for common children's conditions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... tions.html

Young patients suffering from tonsillitis will only be allowed to have their tonsils out if they have suffered at least five bouts in the last year.
They will also have to show that the condition is affecting their lives before qualifying for surgery in Greater Manchester.

Oh, yeah, but they won't have to suffer the indignity of receiving an errant bill for a penny.....

Standard of care in some wards 'would shame a third world country'
The standard of care in some hospital wards and nursing homes “would shame a third world country”, nurses have warned.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... untry.html

Obama's pick to run the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Don Berwick praised the British NHS for “making tough choices’’ about the care it administers — unlike the American system, in which the supply of medical care is not artificially restricted. “Here, you choose a harder path,’’ he said in Britain two years ago. “You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.’’ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... ur_health/

“In Britain 36 percent of patients have to wait more than four months for non-emergency surgery,’’ wrote journalist James Bartholomew in The Spectator. “In the US, a mere five percent do.’’

By one metric after another — cancer survival rates, performance of diagnostic tests, availability of CT and MRI scanners, consultation with specialists — US health care is superior. “British state-run health care,’’ Bartholomew concluded, “is so amazingly, achingly, miserably, and mortally incompetent.’’

Berwick thinks the US has too much health care, and that it should be restricted to below demand. He has said exactly that.