Dying For Insurance

Massachusetts Election Brings Scott Brown, Mixed Metaphors And Condescension

2010-01-21T22:36:00Z

Both political parties may be in danger of misinterpreting the election in Massachusetts. Anyone remotely aware of politics will agree that the election of Scott Brown to the Senate has huge political ramifications. Listening to the pundits and politicians after the Brown victory was a gift to bloggers and late night comics. The comments by Rep. Anthony Weiner, a liberal Democrat, mixing metaphors with pigs flying out of a body orifice that any Wayne’s World fan would know is reserved for monkeys was colorfully humorous, but his comments demonstrated an understanding of why the votes went to Brown. He stated that there is a limit to the Democrats saying that the American people “just don’t get it. If we pass a bill they’ll get it.” He then says that the Democrats should admit that they did not do things correctly.

The Race For Health Care Reform Goes Through Massachusetts

2010-01-15T17:20:00Z

Why the rush? The answer may lie in Massachusetts. If someone would have said that the Massachusetts Senate seat had even a chance at turning Republican 6 months ago, eyes would have rolled. The fate of Health Care Reform may now rest with the Senate race on January 19 between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. Even though some polls suggest that Scott Brown is ahead, others show Coakley with a commanding lead. It seems unlikely that the late Senator Kennedy's seat could be claimed by a Republican. But the "what if" considerations have both sides gearing up for the battle and the possible derailing of the Reform bill. The Democrats bypassing the formal Conference to combine the House and Senate versions may be to try and get a vote prior to a possible change in the Senate. Ponder the unimaginable.

The Best Health Care That Money Can Buy

2010-01-15T11:24:00Z

While attempting to keep an open mind for both sides of the issue, it has become more apparent that the politicians are more interested in what each can gain by holding their votes hostage. If the plan is so good for the country, why not vote on the merits? When any politician states his or her ethical opposition to the plan and withholds votes, is it because of a desire for a good bill or a chance to sell their vote for a few hundred million dollars for their state?

Don't wait for your next appointment. Call Today!!

2009-12-13T11:17:00Z

You've all seen the commercials. Those people who start out as depressed, staying at home and tired all of the time and obviously have no reason to live. Amazingly, within the 60 seconds alloted for the commercial, they are laughing, training for marathons and deciding if they should use their new super-powers for good or evil. At the end of the commercial the announcer states, "Don't wait for your next appointment. Call your doctor today!" I am sure that the doctors really appreciate our help in figuring out which medication to prescribe. One conclusion that I have reached is that the small print at the end of the commercials are reduced in direct proportion to the largest HD television screens being produced so that no one will be able to read the warnings. A very close, elderly female family member saw a commercial for BPH (prostate enlargement) and having some problems at night asked her physician about the medication.

Eliminating 500 Billion in Medicare Fraud and Abuse - Pricetag 1.7 Trillion dollars

2009-11-22T11:41:00Z

One of the primary reasons for justifying a total makeover of our Healthcare system is that we can save 500 billion by reducing Medicare fraud and abuse. People may consider me simplistic, but if there are such abuses right now, why don't we go after those who are committing such abuse? Do we really need to include that amount to justify such a sweeping change of the system? We can correct that problem without any additional laws or regulations so why are we told that only a total healhcare reform will solve it? The reason is that by considering the reduction in the abuse as part of the reform, we can subtract that from the true cost of the various bills before Congress. Since we can correct the problem today with no additional laws, the true cost of the reform bill is 1.7 Trillion. Whether or not you agree with the current proposals, let us be honest with the math. If any of you really believe that the government will save money or cut costs on anything, please raise your hand....OK, that doesn't work well on line, so I will determine that 77% of you did not raise your hand. It's my blog; I can make up what I want. That's the beauty of the Internet.

The Politics of Rationing

2009-11-20T17:27:00Z

If you wonder if your Representative is voting with your best interests in mind, the answer is maybe not. The recent passage in the House of Representatives of the repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula is a good thing. If you are unfamiliar with doctor's reimbursement under the formula, simplistically if will reduce doctor's payments by 21% next year. The decreases in payments have been voted down every year until today. The Senate has already voted against the repeal which means that unless there is an agreement, the cuts in payments to doctors will be reduced. The votes against the cuts were almost entirely upon party lines with 1 Republican voting for and most Democrats voting against the cuts. Many of the reasons for voting were not altogether altruistic or for the right reasons. Many Democrats voted to maintain doctor's payments so that the cost would not show as a deficit if the Healthcare bill is passed and gain political points. Many Republicans voted against the repeal because they wanted any potential Healthcare bill would to show a deficit and gain political points. The outcome is the right one, but for the wrong reasons. Doctors are already planning to eliminate Medicare patients. According to Jack M. Bert, MD, " the sustainable growth rate (SGR)formula is flawed and that future cuts may have physicians looking for a Medicare-exit strategy. Eighty percent of the physicians in my 37-man group have decided to electively cease seeing Medicare patients if the 21%reduction goes into effect,” he told Orthopedics Today. The intent may not be obvious, but rationing is coming.

The New Party of No and the Party of Everything

2009-11-20T10:45:00Z

My passion for Healthcare Reform has been diminished somewhat by both parties rushing for resonating rhetoric over substance. The Democrats typically win this battle. If we say the "Party of No" we all know of whom we speak. While answering some emails I had the Television on one of the cable news channels (one of the ones whom the Democrats approve) and heard "everything we try to present, the answer is always No." My programmed synopses naturally think this person is talking about Republicans, and I start paying attention. The person being interviewed was a moderate Democrat Congressman from Michigan complaining that every amendment that his group attempted to present was greeted with "no, no, no" by the liberal leadership of the Democrat party and he was extremely frustrated. My first thought was if the Democrats are going to start becoming the Party of No, then either this Congressman did not get the memo or there must be a new moniker in the works for Republicans. Reasonable, constructive cooperation and compromise are officially dead and we are now reduced to listening to politicians create new phrases that obscure the seriousness of policies and create more division in the country, while smirking as if they have just discovered the cure for cancer.

Insurance company choice without competition?

2009-11-01T22:26:00Z

We need a bi-partisan approach to healthcare and insurance reform, but after hearing both sides, it doesn't seem as if anyone has a firm grasp of the realities of wading through the mire of insurance coverage.
After listening to Mitt Romney's comments this morning on the news shows, it is obvious that neither he nor the Democrats have made the distinction between large company group policies, union policies and individuals who are left the scraps.
He said that the need for government to get involved is unnecessary since we can already change policies if we do not agree with the decisions of the insurance companies. Basically, he believes that competition can work very well now and the insurance company will shake in fear at the prospect of someone changing to another company.

How insurance companies manipulate doctor's second opinions to agree with their decisions

2009-10-31T10:38:00Z

It started out with an innocuous call from our insurance company to our family doctor stating that they had a pain specialist that they would like to arrange to give a second opinion concerning my wife's acute onset of severe pain requiring her to have a wheelchair. Although we had called for pre-approval for expensive injections with a pain specialist and had not received a denial of coverage, any correspondence or payment of thousands of dollars, we thought that now we would get some answers. As we were arranging the appointment, the contacts at the insurance company told me that they would comply with their doctor's findings. The specialist had great credentials, was considered to be excellent in his specialty, so we started the process. The end result was that he agreed with her current course of treatments, dictated a letter explaining his findings and sent it to the insurance company with a copy to my wife. After the appointment there was a two week silence from the insurance company, so I called to find out about the payments and coverage. I was told the following: "Yes we received the letter and have been reviewing, but although he dictated his findings and his hesitation in his doing the treatments or physical therapy, it was signed by the office manager and we need to talk to the doctor before we approve it." Over the next few weeks, it gets really interesting and I received my first education in insurance logic.

Forced insurance - Giving myselft equal time to disagree with my previous post

2009-10-19T15:20:00Z

For those who have questioned my political affiliations, this will further obfuscate your conclusions. If there were a Logical Party, sign me up. While I generally agree with the logic of my previous post on Mandatory Insurance and Pre-existing conditions, there may be some constitutional issues and political realities which will require some navigation. We probably will not end up with mandatory insurance, but considering pre-existing conditions will not be allowed. Although we all like something for nothing, it never seems to work out...at least in my experience. The insurance industry's report last week that the costs will go up dramatically if the current reform versions are passed was met with both agreement and scorn depending upon political ties. If your mind is made up, you may want to stop reading. If you really want to dialog about the complexity of healthcare reform, read on.