A case study lying about health care

ccbatson · August-17-09, 03:22 PM

Dropped? Or premium's raised?

If dropped without cause, get a lawyer, you will win.

**rb336** · August-17-09, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Dropped? Or premium's raised?

If dropped without cause, get a lawyer, you will win.

case law does not support that

ccbatson · August-17-09, 03:27 PM

HIPPA laws prohibit it. There may not be many actual cases for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Insurance company lawyers advise against violating the law.
2. There is actually a valid rational for dropping the person....lapse in payments of the premium, fraudulent claims, etc.

Lorax · August-17-09, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

HIPPA laws prohibit it. There may not be many actual cases for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Insurance company lawyers advise against violating the law.
2. There is actually a valid rational for dropping the person....lapse in payments of the premium, fraudulent claims, etc.

LOL!!!

As I said, start a lawsuit, see how long the billionaire corporate masters drag it out, you'll be dead before the appeals process runs it's course. LOL!!!!

So people get dropped by the thousands every year. The people I know, now use the local emergency room, and show up without ID. I say let the people who pay for their health care pay for those who can't, they are now, and it's only going up.

I have told everyone I know who was dropped, or can't afford to pay for private insurance anymore to head straight to the emergency room for even the most minor thing, that should send the message.

**gazhekwe** · August-17-09, 06:48 PM

More lies about health care as employee benefits. It seems there has been a groundswell of attacking employee health care benefits as too costly and rendering employers non-competitive or costing taxpayers too much. On such assault has been on Michigan state employees and retirees "gold plated benefits" that are said to be much better than average nationwide.

MSU economist: State workers earn less than private-sector counterparts

Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News

Lansing --The idea that Michigan's state employees earn more pay and benefits than their private-sector counterparts is nothing more than an urban legend, according to a study released today by Michigan State University economist Charles Ballard.
Ballard looked at the changes that state employees have seen in their level of employment, benefits, work hours and compensation from 2001-08, and concluded that state workers earn less money and pay more for their benefits than non-government employees.

The study is at odds with figures cited in House Speaker Andy Dillon's recent proposal to combine state workers' health benefits with those of teachers and municipal workers. A House Fiscal Agency analysis cited by Dillon found state employees contribute less to their health care than those in the private sector.

Ballard's research was funded by a coalition of unions that represents about three-quarters of Michigan's 55,000 state employees.

Ballard compared separately the salaries and benefits of state workers to those of private-sector workers with similar education levels.
"There's a lot of myth, urban legend and folklore about what state employees get," Ballard said. "If you correct for education level, their pay is actually less."

"Some people may be responding to what the pay and benefits were for state employees a decade ago," he added. "Whatever state employees are getting, they get substantially less than they did before."

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...r-counterparts

Stosh · August-17-09, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

More lies about health care as employee benefits. It seems there has been a groundswell of attacking employee health care benefits as too costly and rendering employers non-competitive or costing taxpayers too much. On such assault has been on Michigan state employees and retirees "gold plated benefits" that are said to be much better than average nationwide.

MSU economist: State workers earn less than private-sector counterparts

Karen Bouffard / The Detroit News

Lansing --The idea that Michigan's state employees earn more pay and benefits than their private-sector counterparts is nothing more than an urban legend, according to a study released today by Michigan State University economist Charles Ballard.
Ballard looked at the changes that state employees have seen in their level of employment, benefits, work hours and compensation from 2001-08, and concluded that state workers earn less money and pay more for their benefits than non-government employees.

The study is at odds with figures cited in House Speaker Andy Dillon's recent proposal to combine state workers' health benefits with those of teachers and municipal workers. A House Fiscal Agency analysis cited by Dillon found state employees contribute less to their health care than those in the private sector.

Ballard's research was funded by a coalition of unions that represents about three-quarters of Michigan's 55,000 state employees.

Ballard compared separately the salaries and benefits of state workers to those of private-sector workers with similar education levels.
"There's a lot of myth, urban legend and folklore about what state employees get," Ballard said. "If you correct for education level, their pay is actually less."

"Some people may be responding to what the pay and benefits were for state employees a decade ago," he added. "Whatever state employees are getting, they get substantially less than they did before."

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090...r-counterparts

I like the qualifier "corrected for education". I suppose that one could always leave for the private sector in some cases. But there's pressures on the private sector as well, for productivity improvements [[read case load). Everyone's under pressure to do more with less.

I think the main thrust of the health care pool as presented is the elimination of the MESSA third-party charges.

ccbatson · August-17-09, 11:59 PM

Dropped for cause [[not paying the bill) is unfortunate [[and avoidable), but within the rights of the insurer per the contract signed by the insured.

Lorax · August-18-09, 09:20 AM

Where is the massive endorsements of big business in a single-payer or even a public option system? Don't they realize that they can wash their hands of dealing with medical coverage for their employees? It's a win/win for both employer and employee.

And the reason for no support of a public system? The big corporations have such deep seated contempt for their employees, that they won't even spend one dime to support a public system. They may be forced to pay them a little more for the deductions they currently take out of their paychecks as contributions to their health coverage.

Medicare for all, please.

ccbatson · August-18-09, 11:07 PM

Lorax, that is illogical in the extreme. Corporate financial well being is favored by socialized medicine, and via the cooperation/collusion with the unions, they are in support of it.

Uh oh, do you mean that the mortal enemies of liberals [[corporations) are on the same side of this debate as the socialist/libs?

Lorax · August-19-09, 08:43 AM

My point exactly, thanks for making it for me.

I agree the interests of corporations and socialized medicine are in line. My point was, then where is the massive spending support for the single-payer system? I don't see Exxon or Walmart running ads supporting this.

The only logical explaination for the sound of crickets from the fascist right wing run corporate behemoths is that they would have to increase pay for what is currently deducted for the lousy private insurance they now have.

Nothing but contempt for their workers.

Walmart has even proven that costs can be driven down with their 4 dollar prescriptions using economies of scale. The same can be done with a single-payer or public option setup.

**mjs** · August-20-09, 12:21 PM

What political message have you seen from a Walmart or Exxon ad? They're corporations; not fake grass roots organizations funded by political parties. Regardless of the issue, regardless of the side, political ads would cost them customers which costs them profits. Even though you hate it, the job of Walmart and Exxon's PR people is to improve the profits of their company. That doesn't mean they're evil and hate their employees and customers.

Walmart's $4 prescriptions has proven that for profit organizations can lower health care costs. If you want to prove that a government organization can do it, you need to reference a government organization. Since per capita spending on medicare prescriptions haven't gone down since Walmart introduced its $4 prescritions, you can see where some people think savings by one organization doesn't eqaute to savings by all.

**Detroit Stylin** · August-20-09, 01:19 PM

CC don't worry I got your back....all evidence supporting your stance can be found here..

http://tinyurl.com/l8ucyr

Stosh · August-20-09, 01:52 PM

Woo. I suppose this is the kiss of death for any hope the Republicans have of killing this, thank God. Why anyone would even consider sticking a microphone in her face is questionable, but it's invaluable to see the lunatic thought process at work.

With any luck they'll pop ads with her comments, just to show the country just how F*#ked up she is.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/po...-52720027.html

**Detroit Stylin** · August-20-09, 02:41 PM

She is such a moron man....I hope they stick another microphone in her face....

ccbatson · August-20-09, 07:39 PM

If socialism, collectivism, statism, and attacking liberty are evil, then....Dang, Palin gets it right again.

Lorax · August-20-09, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

If socialism, collectivism, statism, and attacking liberty are evil, then....Dang, Palin gets it right again.

Problem is, socialism and collectivism aren't evil, and most people would love to continue down this path. Attacking liberty is a Rethuglican specialty, why change horses in mid-stream? You guys are so good at it.

ccbatson · August-20-09, 07:55 PM

Philosophically life is defined as liberty. Anything that contradicts liberty is antilife [[or pro death if you like) and therefore evil.

Lorax · August-20-09, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Philosophically life is defined as liberty. Anything that contradicts liberty is antilife [[or pro death if you like) and therefore evil.

LOL!!!!

Life defined as liberty? According to whom? You really are resolute and convinced of the rightness in what you think- too bad it's tragically flawed.

I really pity you.

**jams** · August-20-09, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Philosophically life is defined as liberty. Anything that contradicts liberty is antilife [[or pro death if you like) and therefore evil.

Do they now pass out MDs in Cracker Jack boxes?

ccbatson · August-21-09, 09:00 PM

That is philosophy, not medicine. Specifically Objectivist philosophy.

**rb336** · August-25-09, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Objectivist philosophy.

an oxymoron

**elganned** · August-25-09, 10:34 AM

"Objectivism" as a philisophical viewpoint didn't originate with Rand.
Nietzsche was preaching it long before, though he never stooped to give it a label.

**rb336** · August-25-09, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

"Objectivism" as a philisophical viewpoint didn't originate with Rand.
Nietzsche was preaching it long before, though he never stooped to give it a label.

Nietzsche is doubtless the root of some of what Rand puts forth -- via thoroughly faulty, near childish misinterpretation

**elganned** · August-25-09, 11:40 AM

But aren't those the hallmarks of most of the reductionism that takes place in the name of mass pseudo-philosophy? I submit "Social Darwinism" as a classic example.

It isn't what has been said, but rather what people perceive to have been said that infuses social movements.