General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn an ACA Decision "Reaction" story ...
Played on NPR this morning, a "nurse" said, " something to the effect of) Because of the ACA, I frequently wake up from a nightmare where I'm holding the hand of a dying patient as the doctor comes in to tell her that the life-saving procedure that she needs won't be performed because the Independant Board has deemed the procedure unnecessary." She said this with that "edge of tears" voice.
How I wish the reporter had asked her, "Have you been sleeping through the reality of holding the hand of a dying patient as the doctor comes in to tell her that the life-saving procedure that she needs won't be performed because the accountants of the private for-profit insurance company has deemed the procedure not cost effective and/or the payment would cause the private for-profit insurance company to miss its profit target?
Let's see ... on the one hand we have an Independant Board of disinterested physicians that determine the efficacy of procedures and whose recommendations are, by law, not to be used to deny specific procedures for specific patients ... Versus ... a flat out denial to pay for a specific medical procedure, for a specific patient, made by non-physician whose employer tracks and evaluates him/her on the resultant expeditures of his/her determinations ... Which one should be nightmare inducing?
JustAnotherGen
(31,898 posts)I was listening this morning as I drove into work and I think I had a ministroke.
Does that nurse not understand that this has been going for years - only because the Board of the Health Insurance company had to make a choice that would reap higher profits?
I get so angry with NPR sometimes . . . The fact that there was no rebuttal for that 'Death Panel Hoax' makes me want to hurl chunks.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)sock puppeting isn't new and it didn't start with the internet. LTTEs and call ins are innudated with paid responders working from scripts.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But this wasn't a call-in segment; it was a "man on the street" interview segment.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)No claims filed, but my homeowner's insurance went up 80% for the year this month. Called to find out why and got a long winded speech about how there hadn't been increases in years and last year was a bad year in the state, on and on. I hit up the googles while she was talking to look up a piece of data I suspected might be relevant to the conversation.
When she finished, I said, "Your CEO, <name>, made $36.2 million in salary and varied comp last year"
Love her heart, she just got quiet and said, "yeah, there is that".
Suffice to say, I changed providers to one that didn't have a "bad year in the state" last year.
It really is pretty simple when you boil it down to the profit motive and whose interests are being protected in all of this.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I absolutely love that!
It's encouraging that she understood what you were talking about; but, unfortunately, because all calls into insurance companies are monitored and recorded ... this just above minimum wage wage-earner will likely lose her job.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)the ones you get transferred to when you want to close an account, who are trained to try to salvage it.
She was really nice and I gave her excellent marks on the survey they sent me about the "service event" or whatever. Best of all, she knew it was all a bunch of bullshit. She tried, but at an 80% year over year increase, there was no way they were going to keep me.
I am glad you are sensitive to that. I am too, and wish more people were. SHE isn't drawing in $30 million a year by denying claims to jack profits. She's just one of us trying to make a living.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Best explanation for her insane dreams, IMO.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)In that same report, a "conservative Constitutional Law Professor", stated that Roberts' opinion was fatally flawed because he failed to consider that the Democrats and President Obama had said that the I/M was not a tax when promoting it in Congress. Wouldn't that suggest a political question?
Now, I now it's been 30+ years since I took Con Law, and this professor is currently teaching it; but maybe someone can help me out here:
From what I took from my Con Law class was: The SCOTUS is to assess the constitutionality question of a law; and is to leave the political question to the politicians.
Has the SCOTUS' charge changed?