hilarious…

Castaneda often referred to this unknown realm as nonordinary reality, which indicated that this realm was indeed a reality, but radically different from the ordinary reality experienced by human beings.

.
sigh

Well, actually, yeah, I do. Name one Republican who has agreed to support even one of the six different health care bills that have come out of committee since the summer, all from fully bipartisan committees in which, by law, Republicans had equal representation.

I agree with you completely, of course, except that I continue to hold out hope (considerable hope) that Obama will wind up pushing through a plan that includes a real public option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y0-_-0EHyE&feature=player_embedded

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Can you give me a case where Barack Obama has reached across the aisle and cut a deal and gotten something done for the country? One example.”

GOVERNOR PATERSON: “Well, Senator Obama has been there two years and I can’t cite an example right now…”

When Repubs were expressing their concerns about the stimulus package, and the massive rice tag, Obama told them “I won”. Is that reaching across the aisle?

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/09/19/yepwords-just-words/

As I said above, he doesn’t need them. He is blaming them because he can’t get the support from his own party. He doesn’t need them, but he doesn’t have the votes from the Dems, so it is quite easy to blame the right for his failures.

The Iraq war, which Dems love to blame the Repubs for the financial mess, was supported by 75% of the Senate. Bush had all their support. Obama can’t even get Dems to support true health care reform…

1. This is a measurement of the current draft of the Baucus bill, which is already notorious for suckage. We won’t know what bill will actually be voted on coming out of the Senate until next week, probably, let alone what bill will emerge from the coming epic bargaining session between representatives of the House, Senate and White House. So don’t make the mistake of assuming that Baucus is anything approaching the final word.

2. Please note also that even this lobbyist-written legislative atrocity is, according to the CBO, DEFICIT NEUTRAL. Stop talking about all the extra money we’re spending. To the contrary: all these different versions of legislation are, in varying degrees, designed to slow the growth of health care spending. The path of bankruptcy is to do nothing, or tinker around the edges, as many NQers advocate.

3. If you’re going to argue from the position of caring most about the uninsured and the federal deficit, you should be advocating as strongly as possible for a robust, national “public option” insurance plan. This is the only proposal that has any prayer of lowering the trajectory of overall health care spending while also covering virtually all the uninsured.

If you agree with these statements, then you are in parallel with the progressive Democrats who who are fighting for just this sort of bill in both the House (where it will be easy to obtain) and the Senate (where it is the epic political battle of a lifetime). Whether a public option succeeds, I believe, will in large part depend on whether Obama is willing to do the right thing. Just don’t like as though this question has already been decided. And please do have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge a) that a public option is essential, and b) if we get one, it will be because Obama was smart and strong and political shrewd and progressive enough to fight for it and make it happen.

Finally, Sara, thank you for writing me an actual response (as opposed to a cavalcade of reflexive insults). I do heartily enjoy getting into a mature dialogue on this fascinating site; it’s the reason I keep coming back, and keep ignoring the meaningless “stupid bot” spew.

The preliminary report said the committee’s health care reform package will not add to the national deficit — and will save $81 billion over the next 10 years compared to current federal health care spending.

The CBO predicts that the bill will increase spending by $829 billion — but that figure will be more than offset by the tax increases, fees, penalties and spending cuts also proposed in the legislation.

But the CBO also said the bill would not fully solve the problem of the uninsured.

“The number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million, leaving about 25 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants)

Does that sound like a good bill? ALL that money and time to cover 29M people, but still leave 25 M uninsured – uncared for, and a drain on the system?

We aren’t going to get good reform, and tough decisions made if these tools are still in the pockets of the health care industry. And as the links show above, they are, especially obama.

And AGII, I meant to thank you too for yet another awesome article!

I think your blog post is brilliant, AGI, so first off, thank you for all your hard work. Your information challenges readers to think, and that is so crucial.

But, there is a difference between Medicare and For-Profit Insurance Corporations, so comparing the “denials” for them is akin to comparing apples and oranges. Medicare does not operate at a profit; and their administrative costs are at or near 3%, compared with 15% or more for For-Profit Insurance Corporations [which still have to make a huge profit over the administrative costs].

But some of the Medicare claims–as I said–are fraudulent on their face. And, those fraudulent medicare claims are increasing at a steady pace, now that the MAFIA has infiltrated the Medicare Scam biz.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/index.html
Bogus billing
Medicare fraud growing violent
Easy money, low risk appeal to career criminals

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 3:10 AM
By Kelli Kennedy

Associated Press

MIAMI — Lured by easier money and shorter prison sentences, Mafia figures and other violent criminals are increasingly moving into Medicare fraud and spilling blood over what was once a white-collar crime.

Across the nation, federal investigators have been threatened, an informant’s body was found riddled with bullets, and a woman was discovered dead in a pharmacy that was under investigation, her throat slit with a piece of broken toilet seat.

For criminals, Medicare schemes offer a greater payoff and carry much shorter prison sentences than offenses such as drug trafficking or robbery.

“We’ve seen more people that used to be involved in (dealing) drugs are switching over to health-care fraud because it’s not as dangerous,” Miami FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said.

Medicare scammers typically make their money by billing Medicare for medical equipment and drugs that patients never receive — and never needed. Some pay homeless people on Los Angeles’ Skid Row for Medicare or Social Security numbers to use on fake billing invoices. Others intimidate elderly victims to use their Medicare numbers, federal authorities say.

One thing to consider in those numbers is that Medicare does not drop patients. Medicare’s percentage of denied claims may be higher, but then, they haven’t cherry-picked the healthiest patients.

I am a doc and can say that I have much more trouble getting services for private insurance patients covered in general than I do for state insurance

Points taken, Scout. But consider this:

Private insurers can’t deduct significant, non-negotiable fees from every wage earner’s paycheck, like the government does for Medicare and Medicaid, even though Medicare doesn’t cover those wage earners until they’re at least 62 years of age, and Medicaid only covers the poor. What will government deduct if it subsidizes tens of millions more people, and how will subsidizing more people effect the reimbursement you enjoy today? If insurers weren’t able to attach riders to new policies for pre-existing medical conditions, there’d be no incentive to even purchase insurance until illness presented.

Private insurance incentivizes (to borrow a term the POTUS likes to use) healthy habits. Abstainers of unhealthful behavior pay less for health insurance. Those who enjoy some unhealthy behavior pay more. As it is now with Medicare and Medicaid, government only discriminates based on age or income and I’m unaware of any incentives in current proposed legislation that will be expanding government subsidy.

My husband and I have HSAs with very high deductibles. Nevertheless, our provider still helps to pay for various test, services, medications, etc. Yet HSAs may become a thing of the past according to some proposed legislation. Why?

There’s a chain of private clinics cropping up (Qliance) that charges reasonable monthly membership fees for primary care. Qliance accepts no private or government insurance, thus passing along substantial cost-saving to the benefit of their patients’ care. We need more innovation of this sort — where’s the incentive for it in current proposed legislation?

State mandates have driven up healthcare costs and spending by requiring increasingly comprehensive insurance coverage. The result is many consumers (often via employers) have to pay for services they really don’t need or want. Why aren’t legislators addressing this problem? Is it fear of bucking their unionized political patrons?

Drugs prices are a big factor when it comes to rising healthcare spending. So, why are WE paying high prices for American prescription drugs in order to subsidize foreign consumers of them? Why isn’t our government proposing something to correct this?

My belief is there’s very little creativity and honest, fair brokering in current proposed healthcare “reform”. A goal of equitably containing spiraling costs and spending seems to be non-existent. Anyone, please, feel free to tell me about aspects of proposed legislation that refute my belief. I’m truly hoping the situation’s not as bad as I think it is.