If only Americans felt the same way about Oboma and his administration. We'd all just have one big world-wide group hug.
Because WE DON'T!
Monger on All.
Toymann
Printable View
If only Americans felt the same way about Oboma and his administration. We'd all just have one big world-wide group hug.
Because WE DON'T!
Monger on All.
Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann]If only Americans felt the same way about Oboma and his administration. We'd all just have one big world-wide group hug.
Because WE DON'T!
Monger on All.
Toymann[/QUOTE]But, where do you get that Americans "DON'T" like the President. Most Americans in the U. S. do like him and think he is doing a good job, according to all the polls done in the last few weeks.
Even Fox has 50% saying he's doing a good job and 42% saying he isn't. That spread is repeated when the Gallup, NBC / Wall Street Journal, CBS / NY Times, Fox and Rasmussen polls are combined. Check it out on the U. S. Polling sites.
Maybe it's just the mongers you hang with in Buenos Aires that don't like Obama for some reason?
Canitasguy,
Some of us like Obama and support what he is doing. That global image poll is quite interesting and I'm sure he finds it encouraging that US came in first. And how ironic Iran came in last. lol
In the UN's human development index though, Norway ranks as the best place to live, followed by Australia, Iceland and Canada. The US comes in at #13.
The title says it all: "Why Rupert Murdoch Will Fire Glenn Beck". Something about hateful speech and advertisers pulling out.
huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/why-rupert-murdoch-will-f_b_309373.html
[QUOTE=Esten]Canitasguy, some of us like Obama and support what he is doing.[/QUOTE]Tonight AP released its latest poll taken over the last 5 days. Obama's performance approval is now 56% - up from 50% in September. While 39% disapprove, down from 49% last month.
His support from independents is up nine points and disapproval is down to 37% from 53% in September.
Approval of his handling key issues came in at 50% for the economy (up from 44% in September); 48% for health care (up six points) and 46% for Afghanistan (same as before)
Even 18% of Republicans approve his performance, up six points since September.
The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1%.
I think Esten and Canitas guy are really Ricardo in drag. Surely people don't actually approve of Obama. What are you guys commies?
And before I get accused of spamming, just wanted to mention I am headed to the illustrious Cocodrillo in a mere hour or two.
Who routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts? Congress has placed regulation of all group insurance policies under the dept of labor. The regulations say that the carrier cannot be sued if their follow their own internal policies--the federal courts have compared this system to having the wolves guarding the hen house.
These aren't left nor right issues--they are issues about corruption and lack of help for consumer either by private attorneys nor government regulation.
The shark eat ther smaller human fish on an ongoing basis. Unfortunately all of may be one of those fish one day.
The basic story line of SICkO IS A TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT being denied treatment that the carrier has their inhouse hack MD's have reviewed and denied. Moore then travels the world to see how the same situation is handled in other countries--which results that might shock many good americans. Yes, it's michael with his gratuitious jabs which may be factual or hyperbole, but the basic premise is shocking to folks from the usa who still think that the usa has the highest quality of life. We used to, but do not today.
The first rule of any good litigator is to always ask questions that you already know the answer to!
My response, would of course be No! That said, in my experience of treating patients I have never had first-hand knowledge or even heard of such an issue. I have sadly treated many terminal patients over the years and have never been denied payment by their insurance companies during their final days. Even more to the point, I also have rarely seen any patients coverage, during treatment, interrupted as a result of the carriers actions (on occasion I have seen coverage interrupted as a result of the patients actions)
As a result of attorney's being allowed to file lawsuits on "contingency" I am also somewhat hesitant to buy the arguement that the insurance company discontinues care because the patient is terminal. Any such action by the carrier would open it to legal recourse that would certainly survive the terminal patient (the attorney would of course still be alive).
We certainly agree on one thing Bobby. Insurance reform should be at the top of Obama's agenda. Healthcare reform is something totally different. Just for the record, I was raised in a socialized country with socialized medicine and the care totally sucks. Take it from a pro that at the end of the day it's pretty hard to find better healthcare anywhere in the world than the good'ol USA.
Monger on Bobby. Toymann
[QUOTE=Toymann]We certainly agree on one thing Bobby. Insurance reform should be at the top of Obama's agenda.[/QUOTE]Insurance reform IS at the top of Obama's agenda. And, he is piling up support from important national Republican leaders including Governor Schwarzenegger, Mayor Bloomberg, Bill Frist, Tommy Thompson, Howard Baker, Mark McClellan and many more. They surely aren't all socialists!
[QUOTE=Miami Bob]TOYMANN--do you support health insurers.
Who routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts?[/QUOTE]Bob, you're a very nice guy. But, this is such a gross overstatement, it almost bears no comment. Unfortunately, I can't help myself.
There are no health insurers who "routinely deny coverage on terminally [ill] patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights."
Plaintiff's lawyers have wet dreams over precisely this type of claim -- they're an odd bunch, and I know dozens and dozens of folks who litigate these things. Anyone who litigates in the insurance "bad faith" area knows this is adulterated rubbish. They won't admit it until you get a cocktail or two in them. Until then, and especially in front of a jury, they keep their game face on. But, if you could make them take a candor pill, they would all confess that the game is stacked heavily against the insurance companies. For lawyers, it's the equivalent of taking sheep to slaughter: You get a 55 year old housewife with some rare form of cancer in front of a jury. She was denied coverage for some experimental procedure that clearly isn't covered under her insurance policy. Who do you think the jury is going to side with? The housewife or the insurance company? If you guessed the latter, then you've seen too many Michael Moore films.
The problem with the whole debate is that there is only one side doing the arguing. Plaintiff's lawyers who file these claims make their living by villifying insurance companies. And, there is plenty of "living" available. The better practitioners make 7 figure salaries. Those who run plaintiff's mills can make 8 figure salaries. I don't begrudge them their income. But, when you hear these folks complaining about the insurance industry, you had better consider the source. They are far more responsible for driving up insurance premiums than medical malpractice lawyers, especially since nearly all states have capped med-mal claims.
And, who are they making their arguments to? Lawyers in congress. There aren't a whole lot of former insurance reps in congress. It's lawyers persuading other lawyers about the "flaws" in the system, and there are big dollars at stake. Then, these same bozos have the gall to complain about the insurance industry lobby? It's more adulterated rubbish -- but it sells, so they keep at it.
Sure, the health insurers have lawyers, too. But, they're not saying anything. Why would they? Kill the claims and you stop the gravy train. Better to keep your mouth shut and bill by the hour -- cha-ching! -- everybody gets rich. Premiums go up, but they just blame the insurance companies for that, too.
No one talks about this. Democrats won't talk about it because "trial lawyers," which means plaintiff's lawyers, are almost universally contributors to Democratic politicians. But, this is where insurance companies spend vast, vast amounts of money. They talk a little about medical malpractice "ambulance chasers," but that's just a distraction. Most of the guys who pursue med-mal claims are pretty sharp. They have to be. They've got to know the law and a lot of the medicine involved. Not so for bad faith insurance lawyers. Any kid out of law school can pursue those claims, and many do just that.
Any insurance companies that "routinely deny coverage on terminally patients because they will not live long enough to fight for their rights under their insurance contracts" were driven out of business long, long ago. Actually, that's not true. No such insurance company ever has existed. The stuff I set forth above is no secret to the insurance industry. They know that these claims are a wet dream to the plaintiff's bar, and they govern themselves accordingly.
Finally, you do your argument a disservice by holding out Michael Moore as a standard-bearer. You can try to disclaim his idiosyncracies and fabrications, but at the end of the day, he's still Michael Moore. Nothing that comes out of that guy's mouth, or that he puts on film, is credible in the least. And, yes, I have seen Sicko. It's about what you would expect if you gave a plaintiff's bad faith lawyer a camera and said "go make a movie to promote your law firm." Filthy, adulterated garbage.
Forget Michael Moore.
"Critical Care"
One of the funniest movies on health care. Whatever your point of view, you get to laugh. Best medication on the Planet: Humor.
Critical Care: [url]http://www.jaman.com/movie/Critical-Care/0KLcQ7ex7xl0/[/url]
Werner Ernst is a young hospital resident who becomes embroiled in a legal battle between two half-sisters who are fighting over the care of their comatose father. But are they really fighting over their father's care, or over his $10 million estate? Meanwhile, Werner must contend with his nutty supervisor, who insists that he only care for patients with full insurance. Can Werner sidestep the hospital's legal team and do what's best for the patient?
Nice post Stan.
Though I disagree with the last paragraph on Moore. To say none of his stuff is credible is not credible. His films leave some things to be desired, but I give him credit for shining light on things that otherwise get little attention. His impact on stimulating reflection, discussion and debate is significant and unmistakable. And I think that's a big net positive.
You will see the health carrier's at their best where dealing with high ticket end of life issues, not doing knee surgeries. Talk to the brain surgeons and oncologists.
WE are not discussing hatred for malpractice attorneys. That is another discussion.
I have significant contact with these types of situations on an ongoing basis.
My favorite story comes from a brain surgeon who gets on the or speaker phone with a health carrier rep:
Hi this is dr X calling from y about your patient Z. You denied authorization for the stent I requestested. I am in the patients brain and your decision will likely result in mr z's death. I need your full name or employee # for my operative report. There maybe a homicide investigation and I want to have the facts straight. Would you clearly state the basis for the denial of the stent.
The speaker is the head of neurosurgical icu at a major teaching hospital. He was providing tactics to doctors for obtaining authorizations from health carriers. This has nothing to do with hating attorneys. Don't let the general feeling of hate and anger which permeates this thread, let you take your eye off the ball here. Do You really want to intentionally have the health insurance industry making life and death decisions with no controls nor way to use the courts to protect the rights of average people.
Stan look up the rules. You are an intelligent guy. I this your preference--what you want for your family? How about you Toyman?
WW read this one--written by a successful businessman who thinks like a business man, but with concern for more than maximizing profit and without a pre-determined political agenda that provides an answer without thoughtful analysis appropriate to healthcare types of issues.
Bob