home

Weds. Morning Open Thread

This so should be a snow day for me. It's been snowing since midnight and anyone with any sense would be home watching it fall outside the window with a fire going, or at least inside a warm office. Not me though, I have to drive to the jail where I'll be most of the day.

Here's an open thread for you, all topics welcome.

< Opiate For The Masses: Not Religion, Sports | Not A Game: Time To Talk Reconciliation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    ooooo (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:21:38 AM EST
    talk about pass the popcorn

    Levi: I'm Hiding "Huge" Things About Palin

    Levi (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    "My only claim to fame is getting a teenage girl pregnant and now I'm going to try and milk 15 minutes out it."

    Parent
    no argument (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    but to paraphrase
    an enemy of the wicked witch of the north is my friend.

    Parent
    I saw... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    "hiding huge things" and I thought you were talking about his Playgirl spread:)

    Parent
    heh (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    dont think that was an accident or typeo.


    Parent
    What's more humorous (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 07:47:57 PM EST
    is that the former Governor of Alaska continues to respond and perpetuate a pissing match with a teenage boy.

    Parent
    This kid knows how to play a hand (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    doesn't he?  He's made an entire career out of teen sex and fatherhood. But he isn't going to hurt her that way :) All the gears in America are grinding now.  This is what happens when you are a politician without hired help.  The punks your daughter dates find out too much about the make and color of your pajamas :)

    Parent
    Query: why does anyone care what (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:53:21 AM EST
    Levi thinks or does?

    Parent
    Because we love dirt (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    And pols are celebrities now.  Even I have to constantly slap that camel nose out of my tent of rationality :)  Everytime Levi speaks, I have to remember what he has actually accomplished in the world before I sit their with my chin on the floor drooling.

    Parent
    Because he fans the flames of (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    Palin-hatred, silly...

    But he also keeps her name in the news, even if it's not flattering to her.  And that could be part of the strategy, too - get the bad stuff out early, deal with it and then be rarin' to go when presidential campaign season opens.

    For reasons that completely escape me, she is apparently still very popular in some quarters.

    Parent

    But those "some quarters" aren't (none / 0) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    even the Republican primary voters. She runs well behind Romney and Huckabee in polls already. She doesn't stand a chance at being the Republican candidate.

    Parent
    see similar comments (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    about that "actor" now one thought had a chance and every democrat was itching to run against before he won two terms.


    Parent
    cause of the dirt (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    he can deliver on Palin.
    we may need all we can get.  I do not under estimate her as others do.


    Parent
    You think she's potentially lethal huh? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    who can know? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    but like I said we may need all the help we can get.

    Parent
    You assume (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    that anything he says would be true.  The more dirt he can dish, the longer he stays relevant. And for the last 6 months, Palin-hating has been a popular sport - might as well ride the gravy train to the end.

    Wonder if all the money he's making now is helping his kid?

    Parent

    That kid had better have some sort of (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:08:49 PM EST
    college fund!

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:40:12 AM EST
    I misread your question.
    YES
    I absolutely think she is lethal.
    she is building a career on pandering to the worst, the absolute worst, elements in the republican party.  which is scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty damn hard.
    and which is also why she could win.


    Parent
    Don't forget to keep an eye on (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:45:48 AM EST
    the Huck.

    Parent
    I think it is entirely (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:53:40 AM EST
    possible one of them could be the nominee.


    Parent
    as far as who is worse (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    rock paper sissors

    Parent
    Palin's worse... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:04:34 PM EST
    Huck plays bass, so there must be some good in him somewhere:)

    Parent
    Palin's career is already buried (none / 0) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    under 6 feet of dirt. I don't think we need much more on her.

    Parent
    I think it's funny that you think (none / 0) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    dirt that Levi would provide a plus. Independants like me, only like her more when the partisans peddle dirt on her.

    Parent
    Levi is a partisan? (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    I thought he was just a kid who feels wronged by the Palin clan.

    And you mean to say if he came forward with a true story of serious corruption in the Palin statehouse you'd like her more?

    Parent

    I'm just wondering (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    What he would know if Palin was actually engaging in political corruption?  Something tells me she wouldn't discuss the mis-appropriation of funds or whatever with him.

    Now he may be able to tell us "dirt" like, someone had an affair (and liberals aren't supposed to care about that stuff, remember?), or they don't sleep in the same bed, or they made the kids eat their vegetables.

    Anything he says will have to be verified many times over - he DOES have an axe to grind.

    Parent

    For sure... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    he's got an agenda, so a grain of salt is advisable, and I don't think Palin was talking strategy with the kid dating her daughter...but who knows what he overheard in the Palin house.

    Sh*t I really don't care, I know all I need to know never to vote for her, and she ain't an office holder no more...I just thought it odd cawaltz would call Levi a partisan.

    Parent

    No, Levi is an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:15:03 PM EST
    Many of the people HERE are partisans. How can I say that? I can say that because Palin increased money to Headstart and low income health care in her state, put a pro choice justice on the bench despite her personal beliefs, vetoed legislation that would have discriominated against same sex couples based on "constitutionality" and is part of a group that lobbied for the the Domestic Violence Act as well as legislation to compel deadbeat dads to pay up but the fact that she wears a Republican label is what makes her such a big, big threat.

    I disagree with her on many issues but I'll be darned if I see her as the caricature the Democrats seem to want to present her as.

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    you definitely have a point about the hatred she attracts, especially when there are far worse Republicans.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:48:35 PM EST
    there are not far worse republicans.
    you find the worst republican you can and that person will be for Palin.

    she is the pretty figure head of fascism dont kid yourself

    Parent

    You sound ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:21:41 PM EST
    particularly when you holler fascism.... and I daresay the oil industry(she increased taxes on their profits) or the people of Alaska would agree with you.

    Frankly, considering the extent the Democrats seem to be going out of their way to protect the banking industry or the health insurance industry I find cries of "mean, mean Republican fascist" pretty entertaining.

    Parent

    she is the ultimate (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    empty vessel being filled by the very worst elements of the wing nut right.

    have fun with your support.

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:46:49 PM EST
    when she was being trashed during the election I defended her quite vociferously much to the chagrin of many lefty friends.  she had, at that time, done nothing to deserve it.

    all that has changed.  she has now embraced the worst elements of the right, endorsed wing nuts and pandered to the most vile haters.

    she deserves what she gets.


    Parent

    Of course... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    Republican loyalists are very Stepford-ish...they'd all rally behind a chimp (not GDub, an actual chimpanzee) if thats who the party nominated.

    But she ain't as bad as Cheney man...cawaltz pointed out some good qualities.

    Parent

    those good qualities (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    were deployed for the same reason the absolutely awful ones are being deployed now.
    to stay in office and to stay in power.

    at least with Cheney you can believe he actually believes something.

    Parent

    Out of all of their candidates (none / 0) (#109)
    by cawaltz on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    I would probably consider her the least offensive. When you look at her record seperate from her party identity you see someone who is fairly moderate. I definitely prefer her to Jindal or Jeb Bush.

    Parent
    Still gotta go with the... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    Huckster as least offensive..again, he plays bass, and I'm a rhythm section loyalist:)

    Parent
    Nobody knows where a Kennedy buys (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:52:51 AM EST
    their pajamas from :)

    Parent
    Snow days don't mean as much (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by magster on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    when you work from home.

    I think they do :) (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    Never even have to consider going in in the first place, and the knowledge people will be trudging in through the mess the next day ;)

    Listening to the rain hit my windows right now. One feline to my right all wrapped up in her blanket. Canine to my left all wrapped up in hers. Heard about the rally in Times Sq. Don't think I'll be leaving my nice warm dry comfy spot for that! I will wear my Yank hat when I walk the canine though :)

    Parent

    Lieberman (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    is such.a.jack@ss.:

    VIDEO: From last night on Fox, Lieberman says the public option would have to seek a government 'bailout' if it hit 'hard times.'

    First of all, insurance companies are going to get a government "bailout" if the mandate is passed without a PO.  

    Maybe Lieberman is going to make a big show of joining the Republican caucus, a la Specter.  Who knows.

    Um, insurance companies (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by dk on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    are going to get a bailout whether or not there is a "public option" in the final legislation.  What do you think mandates are?

    Not defending Lieberman, but let's also not lose sight of the fact that whatever emerges will be a boon for for-profit insurance companies.

    Parent

    I realize that. (none / 0) (#23)
    by lilburro on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    I just found it remarkable that he went on Fox and sounded exactly like Kyl, Coburn, or well, pick one of 38.

    Parent
    What a real progressive has to say (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    about what happened to a real progressive candidate for governor, until she got taken down this week by the Obama/Rahm Way (formerly known as the Chicago Way).  Read John Nichols' column here.

    And the incredibly dirty way that this was done, the dirt that was spread about her -- this was done as a lesson to other former Clinton backers in the party.  Beware of the Obama/Rahm Way and what it may do to the Democratic Party elsewhere as well.

    Then again, this affirms for me even more that I am not a Democrat anymore.  

    Another interesting Greenwald post (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:17:58 AM EST
    re Afghanistan.  This time based on input froma man who fought for the Russian army there.

    Greenwald is giving birth to the (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    credible out of Afghanistan movement.  Thank God because the rest of us aren't smart enough or ambitious enough :)

    Parent
    BTD IS going to end up writing the (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:19:18 PM EST
    opposition/reply brief if he doesn't post soon.

    Parent
    INterested to know what you think of this (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    piece:  NYT

    Parent
    Wow, what an amazing piece (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:55:08 AM EST
    I have thought about how much our family has changed sometimes and I don't know what to make of it either.  We have friends who when everything kicked off got out as soon as possible and then took civilian government jobs on the post here.  Even there there is a disconnect between the experience of family.  I worried about how high strung my husband was when he came home the first time, but he also came home a better person too.  He had come up against situations where he had to make it clear exactly what kind of person he was.  There was an incident that happened in a little border town near Syria at the very start of the Iraq fiasco.  The troops on the ground there had been attacked a lot and they were mentally spent.  There were some armed men on the top of the bank though and rumors from the locals that it was going to be robbed.  So the guys on the ground called for air support to take out the guys on the roof, and on the mission my husband was the pilot in command.  But later he told me that his blazing guns Lt Col was sitting in the gunner seat because he wanted to be a part of this.  My husband said the guys on the roof weren't acting like "bad guys" though.  Yes they were armed, but they weren't firing back at the helicopters hovering.  They were just taking cover, but they weren't hostile.  It troubled him, he asked the guys on the ground if they were sure the dudes on the rooftop meant to rob the place because they weren't acting right to him.  But he said the troops on the ground were so strung out from being constantly attacked.....so he told the guys on the ground he needed to refuel in order to buy some time.  He went and refueled and when he got back, the ground troops had made more of an effort to reach out to the guys on the rooftop and they discovered that they were town's local police force responding the warnings that the bank was going to be robbed.  When my husband is home, I sometimes find him on that satellite program looking to see if they have updated images of those rooftops.  That day and that place left a mark on his soul.  And that Lt. Col. came to hate him, that was the same guy who made his life miserable when he spoke to Hillary Clinton at an Ireland airport, and that same Lt. Col. quickly retired when Iraq exploded with rage.

    Parent
    Chicago...Orwell-Style (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:42:33 AM EST
    City recruiting spies/informants to rat out their tax-cheating neighbors, competitors, and employers.  

    I hope my main man JLvngstn is paying his nut!  And in case NY starts a similar program, I was just kidding about going out to the rez to buy smokes...I love 200% tax rates and consider them righteous and just:)

    Forgot... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:42:58 AM EST
    Historic day for the LGBT community (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    Today, President Barack Obama will sign (or has singed by the time this is posted) the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.  This historic moment marks the first major piece of civil rights legislation signed into law on the federal level recognizing "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."  There will also be remarks from the President at 6:05 p.m.  The hate crimes provision is included in the Department of Defense Authorization Act.

    Link

    Rather (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    he has "signed" and not "singed"

    Parent
    This law is worth singing about (none / 0) (#102)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    anti-gay groups that are gearing up to take away marriage equality in Maine.  

    Next step: Equal rights at the federal level for my (straight) kids!


    Parent

    Not the best weather for my brother to (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:41:04 AM EST
    be moving out of his house in ski country.

    I like this, and so might Rep. Kaptur (D-OH) (none / 0) (#6)
    by DFLer on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:41:35 AM EST
    The Banker Boys Trip Themselves Up

    Imagine not being able to collect on a mortgage just because you can't prove that you actually own it. That's the situation that PHH Mortgage found itself in last week when a judge refused to enforce its claim because it could not establish clear ownership.

    For years courts have been very lax in allowing banks to play fast and loose when it came to establishing ownership rights to pooled mortgages. Such leniency would almost never be extended to borrowers. It now appears as though some judges are prepared to insist that the banks will actually have to follow the law if they want to collect their money. Good article by Gretchen Morgenson calling attention to this case.

    --Dean Baker



    This is great news.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    maybe the courts will come through where the executive and congress did not.

    Parent
    Comment on WellPoint PO Studies in other thread... (none / 0) (#16)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    Let's put the studies out there for folks to review and reach their own conclusions.

    California Premium Impact Analysis
    Missouri Premium Impact Analysis
    Colorado Premium Impact Analysis
    Nevada Premium Impact Analysis
    Connecticut Premium Impact Analysis
    New Hampshire Premium Impact Analysis
    Georgia Premium Impact Analysis
    New York Premium Impact Analysis
    Indiana Premium Impact Analysis
    Ohio Premium Impact Analysis
    Kentucky Premium Impact Analysis
    Virginia Premium Impact Analysis
    Maine Premium Impact Analysis

    WellPoint Health Action Network

    When we believe only that which supports our arguments and ignore those facts and evidence that are inconvenient, we are no better than those we choose to denigrate.  Fact of the matter is, premiums are high for a reason - just like any other service/good you purchase......you have to get the costs for the services provided down.  I haven't seen an economics class since high school and even I know that.  How do you that?  Invest in technologies that enable docs/labs/hospitals to share info more efficiently.  Technologies like Electronic Health Records.  Who's already doing that?  Hmmmm, I wonder.  You hear about things like rewarding cost-effective treatment, negotiated rates, etc. being done under a PO plan, guess who already does these things?  Oh and btw, why all of a sudden are we are no longer concerned about administrative overhead?  Sheesh.  

    Full disclosure: I am an employee of a large health insurance company.  Gotta tell ya, as someone on the inside who understands most folks don't understand how insurance works, it's a shame to see the scam being perpetrated on my fellow Americans by my own Democratic party.  These guys are doing what is politically expedient based on the way the wind is blowing - not actual facts and not the best interests of the taxpayer.

    Guess (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    And guess who also drops you for getting seriously sick if they possibly can?  (It's called rescission).  

    I tried to figure out your source.  It was some organization called "DemocracyData".  I have no idea who they are and they didn't go out of their way to inform me, either....hmmmm.  Looks like a lobbyist firm.

    Source to an organization that doesn't profit from the health insurance industry and the credibility might improve.

    Parent

    Don't know much about rescission (none / 0) (#32)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    as it or is not practiced today.  I do know that was one of the things that was to be dealt with in way that protected citizens.  

    The source is the insurer WellPoint.  From what I can tell, DemocracyData is just hosting the documents.  

    Credibility - 81.1% Benefit/Expense Ratio, and that's w/o guaranteed coverage for any and all comers.  Baby-boomer retiring, and every other health care trend trending upward.  The money has to come from somewhere.  I have to tell ya, most companies can't really lie anymore about what they do - particularly w/all the regulations surrounding health insurers in each of the states.

    Parent

    So these studies were done by, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Radix on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:51:25 AM EST
    at behest of, WellPoint? That they found that reform would drive rates up isn't surprising at all. I would have been shocked if they hadn't concluded that reform would be bad. Oh, I really enjoyed your weaseling on the rescission issue as well, I haven't heard of it or it isn't practiced anymore, who are you kidding?  

    Parent
    Here's a prime example of the herd mentality (none / 0) (#43)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:06:42 PM EST
    If you actually read thru the studies, you would see that premiums don't go up for everyone.  They don't actually say reform is bad either.  Those aspects that are a detriment to our business, well, of course.  Still does not change the facts.  Where is the money going to come from to pay for the services for all these additional people?

    Nobody's weaseling - you don't even know me.  I don't deal w/claims processing, enrollment or actuarial.  I work in Electronic Data Interchange, that is, the submission/retrieval of claims and claims related data electronically.  I made my point about not having knowledge of the practice in all honesty, and also w/knowledge that so many have no clue about how their policies actually work.  Besides, that whole issue is a strawman at this point, since it's clear that anyone can get coverage any time they want.  Try to argue w/o personal attacks - it works better.

    Parent

    True costs don't go up (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Radix on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    for everyone, just some. In fact, it rather looks like instead of reducing costs they just shifted them around, isn't that true? Forced to lower one groups premiums by X dollars, no problem, just increase another groups premiums by the same amount. You've pointed out that someone has to pay for the cost of treatments, which no one has suggested they shouldn't be paid for, the problem has always been those few at the top, of the pay scale, taking a huge chunk of the money as pay and perks. As for you washing your hands of the odious practice of rescission, because it isn't your department, that's not acceptable. If you're going to defend an industry, then defend it, no claiming ignorance and then dismissing one of the chief complaints against said industry, because it's not your department. Let's be honest here, every dollar that's gets paid out for treating an illness, is one less dollar of profit, that is the bottom line here. That's not to say that people keeping track of the patient records and maintaining the computers and so forth don't have value, explain to me what value the CEO's and company Officers add to the equation, to justify salaries in millions of dollars? Dollars that could be used to treat thousands of more patients each year.  

    Parent
    Anyone can get coverage anytime (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    they want?  Seriously?

    About 5 years ago, my husband and I applied for our own coverage; they were willing to accept him, but they wanted to exclude coverage for everything he was being treated for - that's "coverage?"  Do you imagine that if he ended up in the hospital or needed to see the doctor, that the company would not have found some way to connect whatever his problem was with the conditions they excluded?  Oh, they would have been happy to take his money, but I'm doubtful he would have gotten coverage commensurate with the premiums.  The good news for him is that he found out after several years without coverage that the Type 2 diabetes he was diagnosed with in 2007, combined with his service in Vietnam, qualified him for 100% VA coverage and a small pension.  

    There are countless reports of policies being rescinded for nothing more than having to actually use the insurance.  People who work in claims departments getting bonuses for poring over medical records and finding reasons to rescind policies or deny coverage.  How is it that you do not know this, or are even able to admit that it exists?

    Please, do you imagine that the insurance companies will not be charging to cover all these additional people who may be mandated to get coverage?  If they cannot afford it, the government has graciously decided it will make the companies whole by providing subsidies to cover the difference between the premiums charged and what people's incomes qualify them to pay - at least that is what is in these various bills.  It's why the companies love individual mandates - it's a gravy train as to the relatively healthy, and the expensive, poor and sickly ones can get shoved off into a/the public option.

    We all get that the companies are in business to make money, and we also get that whatever sacrifices have been or will be made, it won't be the companies that suffer.

    Parent

    "It's clear... (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:41:55 PM EST
    ...that anyone can get coverage any time they want"?  

    Wow, you should really read your underwriting policies and procedures sometime.  You'd learn just how wrong that statement is.  

    Then there's the problem that despite all of the fancy electronic claims interfaces and whatnot, your Company (doesn't matter which one) still can't manage to pay claims in a timely or accurate manner as required by law.  

    Parent

    I was referring to availability of coverage (none / 0) (#57)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    post-passage of any legislation currently being considered.

    Parent
    Anyone (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    cannot get coverage anytime they want.

    Just for fun, I recently filled out the Health Questionnaire in my state (WA) -- and found out that I FLUNKED.  My score is >325.

    If I were to attempt to switch to another indivual insurance plan, I would not be approved.  Thankfully I got into the plan I'm currently on through the COBRA-exhaustion to individual insurance backdoor so I didn't have to fill out a health questionnaire when I bought the current policy.  However, if my insurance premiums go up to an unaffordable level (They've already increased hugely in the last few years) I would not be able to shop other plans.  I am uninsurable (other than in my current backdoor-achieved plan) on the individual market.  I have no recourse at all to raised premiums.  There is NO free market for me.  In fact, there is no market.

    So before making all of your conclusions, you need to actually do some research of your own.  Don't rely on what your company or Wellpoint tells you.  They have an agenda surrounding making you believe the BS.

    Parent

    Are you kidding me? Do some research? (none / 0) (#123)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:50:37 AM EST
    Were you to look thru my comments on this subject, you'd see I only post links to reliable sources.  That some of these sources tell a story that you may not agree with doesn't automatically make it BS.

    Anyhow, if it was not clear I was referring to obtaining coverage after legislation is passed.  Obviously pre-existing conditions are an issue now.

    Parent

    thank you for posting those (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    and I agree, personal attacks on you are unnecessary and unwelcome. I read Colorado's but most of the terminology is beyond my comprehension.

    I do know that the reason Wellpoint/Anthem gave last year for my rates going up $250 a month on my employer plan with no age change or health issues was the law Colo. passed preventing insurance companies for charging unhealthy groups more -- they said it resulted in them canceling the discount for healthy groups.

    I have no doubt that reform legislation will increase premiums even more -- but I still think it's for the greater good.

    The Colo doc you posted seemed to say the biggest factor that will cause the problem is the reduced penalty for not having insurance (I think that's what they mean by lack of mandate or reduced penalties for mandated insurance) -- they say the low penalties will result in healthy people not getting insurance until they are sick, which will leave them insuring mostly unhealthy or old people so they will have to raise the rates for all.

    Parent

    Most welcome. (none / 0) (#119)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 08:08:32 PM EST
    It was hard for me to get thru them myself.

    Parent
    How on God's green earth... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:00:23 PM EST
    ...do you work for a large health insurance company and NOT know much about recision?

    THAT is the really astounding thing about your post.

    Parent

    To be fair... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:18:20 PM EST
    ...big insurance companies are very compartmentalized.  One hand is kept in the dark about what the other hand is going on purpose.  

    If everyone only knows their little piece of the puzzle, it is less likely that someone will accidently admit to not being in compliance with the law or spill the beans on an unsavory practice that would lead to increased and unwelcome oversite.  

    That being said, it is highly unlikely that anyone in the industry hasn't read or heard about the rescission issue.  

    Parent

    That people get cut off from their insurance (none / 0) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    for not paying premiums, or have their claims denied for one reason or another - of course.  That this is always rescission, no.  Furthermore, see my reply to Radix above.

    Parent
    I looked in vain for a snark tag, (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    and since I didn't find one, I have to assume you were being serious in your comments; that's at once disturbing and insulting.  

    There have been some studies on electronic medical records that not only show little cost savings, but some serious problems.  I would point you to this article, that suggests to me that it is premature to make blanket statements about the benefits of electronic medical records.  There are not enough providers using the technology, the systems themselves need more scrutiny and oversight, with both patient safety and information security being a concern.

    And then there's the cost and implementation of the technology.  Yes, we know all progress comes with up-front costs, but I've cited, below, from the article linked, an example of what is currently happening with electronic records systems, the huge actual cost that will be incurred and the negative effect on patient care and utilization of medical providers.  It's all well and good to say that every new system has to work out the bugs and eventually will save money and lives, but what about in the meantime?

    Outside the United States, countries further along the digital curve have experienced major problems with American-made health IT systems.

    In Britain, a $20 billion program to digitalize medicine across the National Health Service is five years behind schedule and heavily over budget. A British parliamentary committee in January criticized the vendor, Cerner, as "not providing value for money."

    Sarah Bond, a Cerner spokeswoman, said patient safety had improved and errors had dropped at U.S. hospitals that used Cerner products.

    Cerner's stock price has risen 122 percent since February. Shares in Allscripts, another major health IT player whose chief executive, Glen E. Tullman, served on Obama's campaign finance committee, rose by 126 percent over the same period.

    But rising share prices have not always translated into better care.

    "It's been a complete nightmare," said Steve Chabala, an emergency room physician at St. Mary Mercy Hospital in Livonia, Mich., which switched to electronic records three years ago. "I can't see my patients because I'm at a screen entering data."

    Last year, his department found that physicians spent nearly five of every 10 hours on a computer, he said. "I sit down and log on to a computer 60 times every shift. Physician productivity and satisfaction have fallen off a cliff."

    As far as administrative overhead, private insurance has that one pretty much covered, don't you think?  Not only do insurance companies have significant overhead, which reduces the amount that can be allocated to patient care, but the proliferation of so many companies, all with their own forms and paperwork and procedures, means the overhead of providers is much larger than it needs to be, which means those costs have to be passed on to patients, and costs spiral out or control.  

    When insurance companies talk about "cost-effective treatment," that often translates into denial of service, and given the huge salaries of top executives, the money spent on lobbying, the contributions to political PACs, it is impossible to conclude that these efficiencies are accruing to the benefit of subscribers; it is simply insulting to the intelligence of the average individual to suggest that patient health and outcomes are a greater priority for private companies than profit - they are in business to make money, after all.

    When I was at the doctor last week, there was a sign up listing the insurance that is no longer accepted.  When I inquired, in a just-out-of-curiosity way, why they no longer dealt with them, the answer was, "well, some of them just take forever to pay, or they deny everything and make us jump through all kinds of hoops to get paid, or their reimbursement rates are so low we really can't cover the cost of filing the claims, much less paying the practice."   What does that mean for those who have the insurance that isn't being accepted?  It means their choices are limited, often relegating them to providers who have to herd many more patients through their doors in order to make money, which means doctors have less time to spend with patients, which means the care itself may not be what it should.

    So, please, I understand that you necessarily feel obligated to defend the industry, but I don't think you're going to find too many people who buy the arguments you're making.


    Parent

    You're right, the echo chamber on our side is (none / 0) (#52)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    loud and lasting.  Doesn't mean I'm not gonna do my part to dispel the myths.

    As someone who works in EDI I can make blanket statements.  How else will we save money?  Do you really expect healthcare to get more efficient by requiring all doctors to use the same paper form?  Which, btw, exist today, UB-04, and HCFA-1500.  Do you really believe docs will work better together by mailing hard copies of patient's medical records all around?  What if you go to the ER?  How's your history gonna be determined if you're unconscious?  Why do different docs order the same test over and over?  No trustworthy source of medical data on their patient at their fingertips.  The fact is, as far as electronic health records go, they aren't widely in use because the standards are still in their infancy.  Every other aspect of health care, claim submission, eligibility verification, claim payment, money distribution, are all handled electronically today due to HIPAA and other legislation.  That clinical data lags behind is indeed the issue.

    Your comment about denying claims to make fund CEO salaries and make money reflects the echo chamber.  Suffice it say, that's not really what happens.

    I'm not suprised by what you heard at you doctor's office.  I'd love to see what their ratio of paid claims to denied claims is.  I guess your doctor feels, in spite of efforts to keep costs down, and prevent fraud, they should just get paid whatever they bill, whenever they want, w/no questions asked eh?  Tell you what, see how long that lasts under the public option.

    Parent

    When a care provider (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:26:57 PM EST
    decides not to accept insurance from a particular company, I'm pretty sure it isn't because of one denied claim, or one delayed payment, but of a history of problems getting claims paid, or by the roadblocks that take up too much administrative time on every claim filed.

    And, for the record, I did not suggest that we reject electronic technology, I merely pointed out that it is not the boon to patient care nor the cost-saving wizard it is being touted as.  Yet.  And I think it is open to every two-bit, fly-by-night "tech" company that wants to make a killing - money, again - by digitizing medical and other related records, and to more well-known companies who are no less interested in reaping huge profits from moving in this direction.  I can't speak for you, but I'd kind of like there to be some control, some oversight, some safety net that will prevent me from either not being treated properly because my information was not enetered correctly, or from having those who should not have access to my information getting it anyway.  These are real concerns that must be addressed, not to slow down the transition, but because lives depend on it.

    Finally, as has been pointed out by others, every dollar that is paid in the form of salaries, bonuses and other perks, as well as on administrative overhead, is a dollar that will not be spent on claims payments, or on lowering premiums.  There's only so much money in the pot, and decisions are made every day about how that money will be spent.  

    Look at this:

    ANNUAL COMPENSATION OF HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY EXECUTIVES (2006 and 2007 figures):

    • Ronald A. Williams, Chair/ CEO, Aetna Inc., $23,045,834

    • H. Edward Hanway, Chair/ CEO, Cigna Corp, $30.16 million

    • David B. Snow, Jr, Chair/ CEO, Medco Health, $21.76 million

    • Michael B. MCallister, CEO, Humana Inc, $20.06 million

    • Stephen J. Hemsley, CEO, UnitedHealth Group, $13,164,529

    • Angela F. Braly, President/ CEO, Wellpoint, $9,094,771

    • Dale B. Wolf, CEO, Coventry Health Care, $20.86 million

    • Jay M. Gellert, President/ CEO, Health Net, $16.65 million

    • William C. Van Faasen, Chairman, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, $3 million plus $16.4 million in retirement benefits

    • Charlie Baker, President/ CEO, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, $1.5 million

    • James Roosevelt, Jr., CEO, Tufts Associated Health Plans, $1.3 million

    • Cleve L. Killingsworth, President/CEO Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, $3.6 million

    • Raymond McCaskey, CEO, Health Care Service Corp (Blue Cross Blue Shield), $10.3 million

    • Daniel P. McCartney, CEO, Healthcare Services Group, Inc, $ 1,061,513

    • Daniel Loepp, CEO, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, $1,657,555

    • Todd S. Farha, CEO, WellCare Health Plans, $5,270,825

    • Michael F. Neidorff, CEO, Centene Corp, $8,750,751

    • Daniel Loepp, CEO, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, $1,657,555

    • Todd S. Farha, CEO, WellCare Health Plans, $5,270,825

    • Michael F. Neidorff, CEO, Centene Corp, $8,750,751

    and then come back and tell us how these compensation packages, some of which are obscene, are not affecting the decisions made about what does and does not get paid out on behalf of subscribers.  Tell me what the CEO of Cigna does that's worth over 30 million, while ordinary people who've been paying premiums out the a$$ have trouble getting the company to approve a $200 claim, or a $100 prescription.

    I can hardly wait to read your answer.

    Parent

    Perhaps... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    ...the fact that every. single. company. that I examine gets fined for improper denial of claims as well as not paying claims in timely manner will be addressed as well.  

    I do love a good fairy tale!

    Parent

    Do note, though, those companies (none / 0) (#72)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    are publicly traded, as well. They are beholding to those shareholders and they will meet the expectations of the investors before they will even consider the fair treatment of the members.

    The insurance companies are every bit as cheap and unreasonable with the medical providers as they are with their plan members...all for that shareholder dividend and their own greed.

    Parent

    This so not true. You really have no clue (none / 0) (#78)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    and are relying on rank speculation as to motivation.

    They are beholding to those shareholders and they will meet the expectations of the investors before they will even consider the fair treatment of the members.

    Health Insurance companies do not operate like "Boiler Room."  Like any business, they are trying to turn a profit, but not in the manner you describe.

    Parent

    You are not the only one who has (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    worked for private health insurance recently.

    Parent
    I won't argue the merits of capitalism (none / 0) (#77)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    I will say that over-compensated executives are a problem in every industry in America, no?  I'm sure all those folks you list don't get those millions in cash.  A substantial portion is probably some stock crap that I couldn't begin to explain.  I'm not here to debate the merits of CEO salaries.  I think if you paid these folks zippo, the problems we face re: costs would still exist.  Furthermore, how much would we actually get back in our pockets?  A quarter?  A dollar?  We're talking millions of subscribers here.

    What we should be talking about is the value of the health insurance industry as it exists today and whether a public option improves it or would differ.  Yes, there are things that can be improved in health insurance, but to delude yourself into thinking that another gov't run plan will do things any differently is a mistake.  

    One thing that is never discussed is the belief by the average health insurance consumer that every claim should be paid.  In a perfect world that would be the case.  Unfortunately, the people within the system are not perfect.  There's too much fraud, upcoding, billing errors and the like for that to happen.  There's also a certain amount of claims denied in error - no doubt.  However, the actual percentage of denials per claims submitted is not what one would think.  Benefit Expense Ratios of 80% or higher belies the contention that people aren't getting value for their premiums paid.  Should a claim ever be denied?  Should we just pay for everything regardless?  What criteria should we use then to determine if a claim should be paid vs. denied?

    The decision on whether a service is covered or not is not some decision made on a whim.  There are published state, clinical, and coverage policy guidelines that determines whether a service is covered or not.  These decisions are not arbitrarily "made every day" as you imply.  

    Parent

    You mean... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    ...things like Ingenix?

    Using a database run by the UnitedHealth Group, the insurance giant, the industry was accused of systematically understating the doctors' fees for more than a decade and shortchanging consumers by hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Consumers' reimbursements "will actually go up now because the reimbursements were artificially deflated," said Mr. Cuomo, whose office conducted an investigation into these practices.

    Bless their hearts, health insurers really do just have our best interests at heart.  Right?

    Parent

    They do actually, your article is misleading (none / 0) (#84)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    The database isn't "run" by United Health.  Subsidiaries are usually separate companies right?  There's usually rules around subsidiaries re: information sharing.  One I'm familiar w/is vertical integration - that is, no info sharing between subsidiaries as it creates an unfair advantage.  Ingenix is actually a software vendor that many hospitals and docs use.  I've heard of them here in NY.  Check out their website.

    Where We're Going
    Ingenix is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, founded in 1996 to develop, acquire and integrate the world's best-in-class health care information technology capabilities. We invest significantly in research and development, and have acquired more than 50 companies over the past 10 years.

    Your implication is the insurance companies colluded to keep reimbursement down, yet the article says:

    Mr. Cuomo's investigation found that the industry database's determination of $72 as "reasonable and customary" might have been an unfairly low assessment of the actual prevailing local doctors' fees.

    The database, used by the entire insurance industry, has been operated by a unit of UnitedHealth called Ingenix.

    As part of the settlement Mr. Cuomo reached with UnitedHealth last January, the insurer agreed to stop operating the database as soon as a new one could be used. UnitedHealth did not acknowledge any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

    Can't be that bad if everyone agreed they'd continue to use it until a new one was in place eh?  One other salient detail: this was only for out of network benefits.  For those unfamiliar, this when you see a doc not on the insurance co's approved list.  Seems reasonable that they wouldn't want you, the subscriber, incurring higher costs by seeing out of network docs after they've negotiated w/docs to get them IN network and help keep your costs down by limiting them to for example, a $20 copay.


    Parent

    Uh huh. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    First of all, it's the WSJ's article, not mine.  

    Two I don't have to "check out their website"--I know all about the product and how it is developed and used.  If it was as above-board as you would have us believe, it won't have been of interest to every insurance regulatory agency in the country.  The Company wouldn't have settled with the State of NY and it wouldn't be shutting it down--eh?  

    Two, "no info sharing between subsidiaries as it creates an unfair advantage"?  HAHAHAHAHAHA.  Now, that's funny.  There are lots and lots of rules that Company's choose to ignore as a matter of practice.  Saying it doesn't happen doesn't make it true.  

    Three, many docs and hospitals use it?  Hmm, I wonder why.  Surely not any kind of "our way or the highway" kind of arm twisting there, I'm sure.  Nor any industry wide collusion.

    Four, people don't control when or were or how severely they get sick/injured or the lack of contracted providers in a certain area.  We don't live in a fantasy world where everyone gets to go in-network.  Especially the high dollar claims that comprise emergency and urgent care treatment.  Or the charges for things like the non-contracted assistant surgeon (that you have no say in) at the in-network hospital.  These claims that aren't your run-of-the-mill $20 co-pay OV--they're the kind of claims that leave people in severe debt.  

    BTW--I certainly hope you're getting a little something added to your paycheck for all of this hard work.  

    Parent

    As it happens, I do not believe the (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:14:00 PM EST
    public option, as it currently appears to be designed, will do much to scare the private insurance companies into lowering premiums or improving service - there simply will not be enough people eligible to provide the necessary counterweight.  And the industry has certainly spent a boatload or two of money lobbying the Congress and bending the ear of the president - at his invitation, of course - to protect their turf, minimize the likelihood of regulation for which there would be no back-door escape hatch, and guarantee them - they hope - many millions of new subscribers who may be mandated to have coverage but who will not qualify for the public option.

    I have no doubt that there are people - subscribers and providers alike - who make fraudulent claims against insurance companies.  Insurance companies are their own bureaucracy, and mistakes are made.

    But there is too much anecdotal and on-the-record evidence that the primary objective of these companies is to make a profit - as much of it as possible - which means they pride themselves on paying out as little as possible on behalf of the subscribers whose premiums make it all possible.  

    For example:

    Here's Aetna, which paid its CEO over $23 million in 2007:

    In 2007, Aetna applauded itself for its low "medical loss ratio"--the percentage of revenue it "loses" to paying for health care. (Sensitive to public relations, the industry now calls this a "medical benefit ratio.")

    "Our commercial medical benefit ratio of 79.2% for the fourth quarter and 79.5% for the full year reflected solid underwriting discipline and our focused efforts in the area of medical management," CEO Ronald Williams told investors in February, 2008.

    And here's Wellpoint, whose CEO was paid over $9 million in 2007:

    Faced with lower-than-expected profits in the first quarter of 2008, WellPoint President and CEO Angela Braly announced new health insurance products to bring in new members--but not just any members.

    Braly reassured investors, "As we are rolling out these new products we will continue to price business for appropriate margins. We will not sacrifice profitability for membership."

    The company's Chief Financial Office, Wayne DeVeydt, reiterated this point. "I want you to know that we remain very disciplined in our underwriting approach and do not pursue business that we believe is priced below our profitability targets."


    And here's HealthNet, whose CEO earned a paltry
    $3 million in 2007:

    Though smaller than the other big guys, Health Net made the news by giving large bonuses to employees for canceling policies. This practice came to light in a lawsuit filed by Patsy Bates, a hairdresser dropped by Health Net in the middle of her chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer.

    The analyst responsible for canceling Bates' contract made more than $20,000 in bonuses--a reward in part for exceeding the company's policy cancellation goals.

    "Through nearly 300 rescissions," the Los Angeles Times reported in 2007, the analyst "ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: `[Her] successful execution of job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability' of individual and family policies."

    Health Net had tried to squash public access to the documents, "arguing that they contained proprietary information and could embarrass the company."

    It's the business model.  These are publicly traded companies whose stockholders expect a return on their investment, and they have executives whose net worth depends on the stock rising in value.  As long as that's the business model, subscribers will be well down on the list of priorities for where money gets spent.


    Parent

    So your implication is these CEO's are inherently (none / 0) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    shady?  They can't be trusted because they have a financial stake?  I'm not that much of a cynic.  I said this in another comment, health insurance does not operate like Boiler Room.  In over ten years in health insurance, I've never gotten the vibe that it's all about the profits.  Sorry, it's just not there - contrary to what everyone expects.  The ability to make a profit allows companies to fund improvements in the services provided to it's customers.  I started out at a non-profit, and believe me, much of the stuff done then is still being done now - just better.  The goal is to pay claims (when warranted) and improve customer satisfaction.  That drives every initiative I've ever been privy to.  Profit is made on the backs of the employees and sales, that's it.

    Our benefit expense ratio was 85.1% in the first quarter 2008, an increase of 200 basis points over the first quarter of 2007. Prior period reserve development was approximately $120 million less favorable in the first quarter of 2008 than it was in the first quarter of 2007. The benefit expense ratio increase was almost entirely attributable to the Consumer business segment. Approximately 160 basis points of the increase results from higher claims experience in the Senior business.

    They must really be idiots then since they can't just keep the costs for the benefits they pay out down.

    Parent

    I said: it's the business model, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    and I underlined it for emphasis.

    I don't believe that all the people who work for insurance comapanies are evil or shady or criminal, but the pressure to deliver profits is intense, and comes from the top down; providing monetary incentives to employees who help increase profit through denial of care and rescission of polioies is harming real people with real health issues - issues they believed their premiums had entitled them to have covered.

    I do not discount your particular experience, and if it is as you describe it, that's great.  But it is disingenuous to apply this statement:

    The ability to make a profit allows companies to fund improvements in the services provided to it's customers.

    on an industry-wide basis, because there is too much evidence that while profits have gone up, they have done so disproportionate to whatever minimal improvements have been made in service, coverage and premium rates.

    It is very hard to feel all warm and fuzzy when insurance companies brag brag about expense ratios when we know there are many people who have been dropped from coverage upon receiving a diagnosis of cancer or other catastrophic illness, and meanwhile, a bunch of high-level executives are taking home tens of millions of dollars.

    These people are dealing in bottom-line numbers, but those numbers are being built on people's lives.

    Parent

    So your implication is these CEO's are inherently (none / 0) (#96)
    by vicndabx on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    shady?  They can't be trusted because they have a financial stake?  I'm not that much of a cynic.  I said this in another comment, health insurance does not operate like Boiler Room.  In over ten years in health insurance, I've never gotten the vibe that it's all about the profits.  Sorry, it's just not there - contrary to what everyone expects.  The ability to make a profit allows companies to fund improvements in the services provided to it's customers.  I started out at a non-profit, and believe me, much of the stuff done then is still being done now - just better.  The goal is to pay claims (when warranted) and improve customer satisfaction.  That drives every initiative I've ever been privy to.  Profit is made on the backs of the employees and sales, that's it.

    From your article:

    Our benefit expense ratio was 85.1% in the first quarter 2008, an increase of 200 basis points over the first quarter of 2007. Prior period reserve development was approximately $120 million less favorable in the first quarter of 2008 than it was in the first quarter of 2007. The benefit expense ratio increase was almost entirely attributable to the Consumer business segment. Approximately 160 basis points of the increase results from higher claims experience in the Senior business.

    They must really be idiots then since they can't just keep the costs for the benefits they pay out down.

    Parent

    Oh, we know very well (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    how insurance works.  That's why most of us are opposed to it as the method of taking care of people's health.  For-profit "health insurance" is an obscenity, as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    We already have the technology to share (none / 0) (#114)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 05:11:06 PM EST
    medical records. Why buy it or recreate it again and again?  It'll cost a trillion to gear up for the Obama plan, and, guess what, they'll be developing a brand new patient record tracking system. What a waste.

    The fact is, the American public does not even need health insurance, nor do we need banks, another massive capitalistic blood sucking leach on our economy and the middle class. When we pool our resources with credit unions, the profits are returned to the membership. No CEOs, no investors demanding high returns, no more risk than you'd have at a bank. The only reason banks can even compete with credit unions is because the government gives them competitive advantages (cough-bailout).

    The same is true with healthcare. A primary purpose of government is allow us to pool resources for the common good. We build roads, we try to protect the environment and our health, we defend ourselves in wars (obviously these goals need some work). Healthcare is no different from other government services. Not that we need the government to be our mommy, but changing the for-obscene-profit business model is the key to providing good healthcare at reasonable cost.

    If we wanted to (and if a few hundred million of us demanded this of our elected leaders), we could expand our currently existing federal single payer systems to include all Americans on a fee basis. No insurance companies needed, no obscene CEO overhead, no denial of coverage because you chose to give your daughter one of your kidneys, etc.

    Other advantages of phasing out reliance on the insurance industry by switching to opt-in government healthcare are:
    1)    No new systems development costs, just replicate the VA or Medicare or Medicaid systems already in existence.
    2)    Coverage rules are already in place, as well as a process to modify those rules.
    3)    Each person or company makes the choice to go with the government program or pay more for regular private insurance that denies coverage whenever possible.
    4)    The opt-in means political buy-in.  People who choose the government care are supporting the system by choice, not by law. When they see how well it works, the fight is over.
    5)    There's no illegal alien coverage issue, as there is and will be with the Obama plan. That's the area where the "Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act" will get the most criticism because it amounts to charging the middle class to pay for free welfare for lawbreakers. It'll be a key reason for the moderate's backlash against our progressive agenda for the next 10-30 years. However, an opt-in model for currently existing systems is automatically restricted to citizens. Hence, no backlash.

    Sadly, once Obama & the Dem's so-called healthcare reform bill passes, we will solidify the insurance industry's death grip on Congress and our economy and likely won't ever achieve true healthcare reform.  The insurance industry will have even more control of Congress and the public will pay to pick up the slack of those expensive clients the insurance companies don't want. Since everyone's actually "covered," it'll be the end of the movement for real reform.


    Parent

    The head of my credit union makes (none / 0) (#115)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 05:17:06 PM EST
    quite a generous salary--enough to live in the finest housing area of the county.

    Parent
    Does he make $27 million a year? (none / 0) (#122)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:47:59 AM EST
    Are you forced by the government to pay his salary?

    Guess what, you can use a different credit union. Or form a new one.  But once the healthcare fake reform bill passes, we're stuck. We'll never have UHC that actually helps the middle class.

    Parent

    Time to hold this WH's feet to the fire. (none / 0) (#27)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:17:50 AM EST
    Ronald Reagan changed the tax code to the benefit of a Republican agenda.  Bill Clinton changed the tax code to the benefit of a Democratic agenda.  George W. Bush changed the tax code to the benefit a Republican agenda.  Under which presidency did the American economy perform best?
    Barack Obama, what will you do with the tax code?

    From the... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:27:29 AM EST
    "Thank the sun god I'm not a kid in the 21st century" file...the "Little Buddy Child Tracker" is on the market at $100 retail...the poor poor kids.

    Steve Lopez, LAT, visits a physician (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    and obtains a permission slip for medical marijuana:

    LAT

    and now you're outing kdog? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    I DVR'd a Dan Rather special, and just watched it, on the pill mills in Texas. Kids overdosing on all the prescription drugs hitting the streets.  You just go to sleep and the sleep gets deeper and deeper and then oops....you forget to wake up.  I think we'd better legalize the weed so we can stop zipping up body bags.

    Parent
    Do you really think kdog has a (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    medical mj permission slip?  

    Parent
    I think he has several :) (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    I do actually... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:09:17 PM EST
    I was endowed by my creator with a permission slip...under the inalienable rights blanket...I realize powers that be disagree, but they are dead wrong.

    "Friendly" doctors are news now?  Sh*t we've got no shortage of friendly doctors in NY, just no medical mj law...but if you need a script for percs, dins, oxy, xanies, or any number of legal intoxicants, there is always a doc willing to help you out, as long as you're careful to tell the right tall-tale so the doc's arse is covered.

    Like the Blue Goo btw...looks nice, very nice:)

    Parent

    some jacka$$ (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    always has to spoil it for everybody

    Parent
    Gore Vidal expounds on JFK, Bill Clinton, (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    Pres. Obama and ROMAN POLANSKI:

    Huff Pos

    Interesting article (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    about the gender imbalance in health care costs.

    One thing the article did not address, but that I could see as a potential issue, how do higher healthcare costs for women affect hiring.  If I am a business owner, and hiring 10% more women will send my healthcare costs through the roof, that might be a reason to go another direction.

    Also, one of the reasons we "cost more" might have to do with seeing the doctor when sick.  One thing the study says is that after 50, the "imbalance" in cost to the insurer goes away.  Whether this is because there is no longer a need for reproductive care, or whether it is because men over 50 are less healthy, is not addressed.

    So my costs should go down now? (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    I have heard of the problem of small biz hiring too many women re insurance costs. We really just can't win . . .

    Parent
    Most male-specific... (none / 0) (#58)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    ...preventative care (ie, prostate exams and colonoscopies) don't kick-in until 50.  So, it is a little of both.  

    Parent
    Also make me nervous... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    in regards to mandates...if the law is gonna force you to buy something, it better damn well be at the same rate across the board....otherwise I consider it discriminatory.  Optional is a different bag.

    Parent
    This was funny... (none / 0) (#61)
    by desertswine on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:15:52 PM EST
    I got a kick out of.. Schwarzenegger's Secret Message.

    Former Sen. Brooks to receive Congressional (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    Medal of Honor:  AP

    He is 90 years old.  Will Barbara Walters be there?  She is real scum for telling all while the senator is still alive.

    Notice (none / 0) (#71)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:01:09 PM EST
    that the Democrats are not stingy about honoring a Republican!

    Parent
    Good point. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:18:33 PM EST
    Too fat to kill? AP (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    Possibly. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    But people who are out of shape can exert themselves for short periods of time.  

    It depends on what other evidence they have to use against him.  The story had only weak evidence - no physical link to the scene or the gun.  

    Parent

    16lbs of mussels (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    will be arriving at my door soon. Aka, I should really wear glasses when ordering! I thought I was ordering the mussels like the clams, as in how many do I want, not by the pound. I wanted 16 mussels, not 16lbs! lol!~ Oh well . . . . Guess I'll be making more than just seafood gumbo . . .

    We're all coming to your place for (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    Thank You!!! (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    I needed some more recipes {grin} They just arrived. And in my stressing over the amount of shellfish showing up, I totally forgot I also ordered some Pennant Ale :)

    Parent
    To football fans: your help needed. (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    Discussing Limbaugh/McNabb/Rams in connection with news Chargers may leave for new stadium in LA.  My 11-year old tutoree, who is a big Chargers fan, asks me if there has ever been a Latino NFL quarterback.  I tell him about Mark Sanchez.  Now I have printed out the Wiki re Sanchez.  What else does he need to know?

    Let's see (none / 0) (#90)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    This site lists a number of names I would not have guessed.  Jim Plunkett?!  But I assume your tutoree has heard of Tony Romo.

    Parent
    Thanks. Printed and ready to go. (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:26:36 PM EST
    I envision a new oral report project.  Last one:  "melage."  I say, what is a "melage."  He says, have you heard of a "collage."  I say yes.  Apparently a "melage" is a "collage" about "me."  Easy.

    Parent
    Wow - a columnist not in love with Obama (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:20:55 PM EST
    Bonnie Erbe - know anything about her?

    President Obama drew heat last week for a story that surfaced outing his private White House male-only b-ball games. The story was that even though two female members of his cabinet were members of their college basketball teams, they were excluded, as were all women, from this most private of male-only clubs. The story became a metaphor for how the president views women generally and threatened to reveal some inconvenient truths about the man.

    Now we see reports that gender-insensitivity charges have resonated with the Obama White House. According to Politics Daily, the president dragged chief domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes to the golf course on Sunday, and she became the first female to join his golf foursome since he took office. The event produced a photo op of global proportions.

    President Obama could invite Chamique Holdsclaw to the private White House basketball court and Billie Jean King to play tennis with him. I still wouldn't believe he's any more comfortable dealing with women or concerned about "women's" issues than the dearly departed former Sen. Jesse Helms. President Obama talks the talk a lot better and a lot louder than Helms. But Jesse Helms was so rooted in his atavist traditions, he chose to remain true to his misogyny rather than pose for cameras with faux female golfing partners. President Obama must hide the side of his personality that is clearly uncomfortable with women because he needs their votes much more than Helms ever did.

    Whether it was his treatment of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (as in his condescending remark that she was "likeable enough") or his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford Wife, I just don't get the impression this man is comfortable with women. Nor do I believe he cares about them beyond needing women's votes. It's an act and a thoroughly see-through, amateur one at that.



    HA (none / 0) (#98)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    "just in case"

    A deputy assistant attorney general who said he was on his lunch break when an officer found him with a stripper and sex toys in his sport utility vehicle has been fired, his boss said Wednesday.

    He then searched the SUV, where he found a Viagra pill and several sex toys, items Corning said he always kept with him, "just in case," according to the report.



    Well, you know (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    Doesn't everyone have an emergency car kit - you know - flashlight, blanket, first aid kit, $ex toys, and blue pill?

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#105)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:20:35 PM EST
    I do.

    Parent
    if you have not (none / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    seen this you really need to.

    Catholic League Angered By Larry David Peeing On Jesus

    theres video.

    if Bill Dohahue is upset Im happy.


    Jesus H. Christ.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:37:29 AM EST
    Donahue needs to lighten up...its not like, in the comedic drama, Larry urinated on the inaccurate likeness of the big guy on purpose...it was backsplash caused by a medical condition!

    And a very funny episode...the ending had me rolling!  L.D...don't let the pc police get ya down.

    Parent

    the end yes (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    those things had been begging to be grabbed through the whole episode.

    Parent
    'Don't say nuthin'... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:01:41 AM EST
    bad about my baby...oh no"

    Parent
    Since when did the semite Jesus (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:21:11 AM EST
    look like one of the Beach Boys during their acid period, anyway?

    Parent
    I was discussing why (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:25:33 AM EST
    so many anti semites love jesus yesterday in another thread.
    we decided it was because he is a dead jew.

    Parent
    And they got to torture him (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    to this day.

    Parent
    I smell another diversionary (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    wedge issue: Hollywood "elites" and secularists again expressing disdain for this nation that was founded on Christian principals. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    Meanwhile, the real Jesus survived unscathed.

    Parent

    I see the real problem (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:23:13 AM EST
    as a lack of sympathy for middle aged self hating jews with urinary problems.

    Parent
    I tend to to see (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:27:52 AM EST
    the nebbishy types as more self ironic than "self hating" (which is often code for not Zionist enough)

    Not to nitpick.

    Parent

    Larry has (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    actually described himself as a self hating jew I believe.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 09:35:19 AM EST
    But knowing him, even that was probobly meant ironically.

    Parent