McCamy Taylor's Journal
Member since: Tue Nov 9, 2004, 06:05 PM
Number of posts: 14,676
Number of posts: 14,676
Here is my fiction website: http://home.earthlink.net/~mccamytaylor/ My political cartoon site: http://www.grandtheftelectionohio.com/
- 2014 (79)
- 2013 (4)
- 2012 (69)
- 2011 (13)
- December (13)
- Older Archives
Ok, so I started a Julian Castro in 2016 thread over in GD, and someone said I should concentrate on Wendy Davis, so I went to Wendy Davis's site and gave $50. Here is her site.
And here are lots of free smilies for her, too:
And I still think Julian Castro would be a good choice for the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2016 and it is never too early to start thinking about these things.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Apr 27, 2014, 03:39 PM (22 replies)
I love Elizabeth Warren. But she says she isn't running. No one is running. Even Julian Castro said (last year) that he does not plan to run. At this point, our choices on the general election ballot in 2016 are slated to be:
Maybe Jeb (Republican)
Now, an admission. I am a Texan. I would love to see a fellow Texan who is not in the pocket of the oil industries/banks/health insurance industry represent our state in the White House. Texas politicians (who are not the idiot sons of former presents who were elected because voters thought they were electing the father) are a tough breed---like former governor Ann Richards. They know how to fight. That is especially true of Democratic Texans. And doubly true of urban Democratic Texans, like the San Antonio mayor, who has to juggle the needs of his constituents in a state that would rather see the poor and uninsured die in the streets than accept billions of dollars in federal health care aid---the Medicaid expansion.
Here is Castro introducing himself in his own words during the last Democratic National Convention:
Here is some recent news about Castro:
“ Castro is the poster child of leadership in the country for the hispanic community,” Garcia said. “San Antonio has been where we are now-we can learn from them and also grow with them.”
Our nation is a nation built by immigrants. In this era, Hispanic or Latino immigrants are important to the economic prosperity of the country. The Republicans want to force them into a kind of perpetual bonded indentured servant status with the US born children of undocumented immigrants denied citizenship and therefore denied education, forced to spend their lives working for less than minimum wage in places like the Koch Brothers Dixie Cup factories without benefits, without Social Security, without OSHA protections---the slaves of the 21st century, subject to expulsion from the country if they ever dare complain about their substandard living and working conditions. Since the workers in question will have been born in the U.S. many of them will have no friends south of the border. Many of them will not even speak Spanish. Rather than face deportation, they will do whatever is asked of them----and that is slavery in my book.
The Republican Party has seen the writing on the wall---or rather, the math. They suddenly understand that their policies have alienated the fastest growing demographic in the country. They will try to sucker Latino voters by offering them candidates with Hispanic sounding names---and Koch Brother values.
I humbly suggest that Democrats offer more than lip service and surnames. We need to make immigration reform a priority. As long as there are undocumented workers who can be exploited, employers can exploit everyone. Give Hispanic workers protections, and they will join and support unions. They will strengthen the middle class again---the way that generation after generation of immigrants have strengthened the middle class with their hopes, dreams and hard work which made them give up their homes and take a chance on coming to a new country and starting a new life.
And while we are offering Latinos a seat at the table, why not put all that resourcefulness and ingenuity and hard work to use at the head of the table, too? Who understands the needs of immigrants workers better than one who has lived it? That is why I am throwing my support behind the undeclared candidacy of Julian Castro.
Here is Castro going toe to toe with Texas State Sen. Dan Patric (R)
"We have to level with Texans about this issue. Nobody disagrees with you Senator when you talk about the need to clamp down on coyotes, on people who are crossing here illegally, to enhance border security," Castro said. "You and I can agree that we need to enhance border security. However, tonight we're going to talk, as well, about the fact that you've been part of the problem. It surprises me that you're saying you're not tough because out there on Twitter, in front of the Alamo, in your campaign, you've been huffing and puffing like the Big Bad Wolf and now you are dancing around, tip-toeing, like little Red Riding Hood on this issue."
Julian Castro has been in the forefront of the fight in Texas to get the Medicaid expansion to our state:
Conservative Republican governors in Michigan and Ohio looked at similar numbers in their states and decided that expanding Medicaid was a no-brainer. I just wish our governor saw it the same way. Because with a stroke of his pen, he could save more than one million of his fellow Texans from financial ruin if they get sick and save taxpayer dollars in the process. And there's nothing foolish about that.
So mayors like me are going to keep working as hard as we can to make sure that Texans can get covered. In the meantime, states that have so far refused to expand Medicaid ought to reconsider and do the right thing. Let's stop denying millions of people health insurance just because of politics. Let's follow the lead of states that have already insured tens of thousands of their citizens. And here in Texas, let's do it better than anybody else.
Julian Castro is for gay marriage:
Ending the official bigotry that Texas sanctions is both the right thing to do, and it is also good for business," Castro said.
Castro, who is working hard to make San Antonio into a 'creative hub' by luring high tech businesses, says the young professionals who make up those industries, whether gay or straight, feel strongly that banning gay marriage is a civil rights violation.
Officials say they are beginning to see some stirrings of animosity toward Texas for maintaining laws which outlaw gay marriage among the 'creative class' that Castro seeks to lure to San Antonio.
They say having the image of being Alabama in 1962 when it comes to gay rights is not good for the growth of the city's economy, especially among young professionals.
Read more: http://www.woai.com/articles/woai-local-news-119078/exclusive-mayor-castro-says-texas-should-11434934/#ixzz307CNDpiv
Castro is a pro-choice Catholic:
There's no question that there's a teaching of the Catholic Church that's in contradiction with a pro-choice position, and there are folks who've made a lot of an issue of that. But if you look at opinion polls of Catholics, it's very clear that there's also a significant number of Catholics who are pro-choice. And so I feel like almost anything - whether it's a religion or something else, an ideology that folks subscribe to - you're not going to agree with it 100 percent. And you see that with regard to Catholics and reproductive rights. So I realize as a Catholic that I don’t have the same view as the bishops, as the pope, but I’m still Catholic.
I love Hillary. If she runs, I can support a Clinton/Castro ticket. But until then, I am officially going to back Julian Castro as my favorite of the undeclared Democratic candidates for president in 2016.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Apr 27, 2014, 03:20 PM (3 replies)
I found the sexism in this one almost as appalling as the racism that everyone is talking about. Why is a white chick "delicate"? Why is a Latina "delicate"? Why do some men get such a kick out of this fantasy that women are frail flowers that they have to protect from danger---especially dangerous Black men? As an American mutt female, part Irish, part Italian, part Cherokee, part African, I have never felt threatened by an African-American man. Ever. But I've been creeped out plenty of times by crazy old guys like Sterling who seem bound and determined to nail my feet onto some pedestal like one of those French geese getting fattened up to make fois gras.
NOW needs to join in on this one. Sterling basically said that white and Latina women are "delicate" and that Black women are---what? Strong? I can do strong.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sun Apr 27, 2014, 04:46 AM (10 replies)
The NYT has an op ed about a recent incident in Detroit. Man in vehicle accidentally hits child who runs into street. Man gets out of vehicle. Onlookers mistake actions of man. Began to fight him, beat him, he ends up in coma. Press decides it was all about "race" and not about the child:
What struck me about the story is the hero of the piece is a woman, a nurse who came to the aid of both the injured child and the injured man. Deborah Hughes did not attack the driver when he jumped from his car to see if the wounded boy was alright. She rushed to the aid of the wounded boy---the sane, adult choice in the situation. And, when bystanders attached the driver---possibly because they thought the child was in danger---she evaluated the scene quickly, rationally, realized that the violence had gotten out of hand, and she intervened again.
“I saw the boy all by himself, crying,” Hughes said. “His father was in the store. He came out, and I told him, ‘I’m a nurse; don’t touch him. Let him lay there.’ The baby was crying so hard, and I talked to him and tried to calm him down.
“About that time, I saw (Utash) get out of his truck; he came running up saying, ‘Oh, my God, tell me he’s all right. Please tell me he’s all right.’ He was hysterical.”
“I said ‘Please don’t hit him anymore,’ and they backed up. Everybody cleared the way and gave me room to work on him. Nobody cussed me; they didn’t attack me. They just let me do what I needed to do.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140408/METRO01/304080026#ixzz301JU2rol
Why did Ms. Hughes take charge? Was it just her training as a nurse? Or, in the United States, do we still teach our daughters to be peace keepers, caregivers, nurturers and our sons to be the defenders of the castle? I think it is the later. Ms. Hughes says the boy was crying all by himself. Why were the onlookers so quick to defend him from the driver but so slow to comfort the child? I wonder if it is because they had been taught that it is not the man's role to give comfort in a situation like that. They felt uncomfortable looking at the child's pain. They felt helpless. They needed something to do. So, they did what "men" do. They defended. They fought. And, when Ms. Hughes stepped between them, when she offered to restore the peace, they quickly stepped down, because this is what everyone wanted. No one wants violence and chaos, especially not in a situation in which a child is crying and injured. But the men had not been equipped emotionally to create that peace. They had to wait for a woman to do it---like a bunch of stereotypical women in a cartoon screaming about a mouse, waiting for a man to show up to take care of the rodent.
So no, I do not think think this is a "race" story, and I am not surprised that Rev. Al Sharpton did not stage a march over it. I think that this is a gender story. And I believe that society has let down the men who are going to stand trial for their act of mob violence. Had they been given dolls as children and encouraged to care for younger siblings as children and taught that a strong adult is one who keeps the peace, maybe they would have been better prepared to be standing at the scene when a boy they knew was injured by a vehicle driven by a man they did not know.
Someone in another thread suggested a year of national service for everyone. If every young man worked as a medical assistant/nurses aid/child care worker or other "woman's" job for a year---8-5 with supervision, not 24 hour a day at home alone with all the stress that comes from being a new dad---maybe we would have fewer babies killed and young men going to prison for life because no one ever taught them how to raise children. And, while we are at it, all the young women could go to work on road crews, as plumbers assistants, as mechanics assistants. That way, when women take their car into the shop, they would not have to worry that they are being lied to. And, they would have the kinds of skills they need to get out of the pink collar ghetto and get better paying jobs.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Apr 26, 2014, 03:20 PM (0 replies)
...when he went to see his new doctor under his new insurance to talk about his stress and blood pressure and back pain. But his sister had colon cancer in her 50s, and he was 50, and the doctor said that he really ought to get checked. Colon cancer screening was about fifth or sixth on his list, behind getting checked for possible gallstones. He had a lot of problems saved up, since he had been without insurance since his lay off. The surgeon said he did not have gallstones, but he looked at his blood work that his pcp had drawn and told him "You're anemic. That's unusual in a man your age. And your sister had colon cancer in her 50's. Let's get you set up for a colonoscopy." So he drank the nasty tasting stuff and spent way too long on the toilet and the next day he went in for the test...
...and the surgeon found colon cancer. When they went in a few weeks later to snip out the surrounding colon and check the lymph nodes, everything was good. The nodes were clean---no cancer. The tumor had not spread into the walls of the colon. He had a surgical cure. They sewed him back together as good as new. He never even had a colostomy.
This is the kind of health care that folks in countries like Canada and France take for granted. There is absolutely no reason that millions of Americans should have to wait until their colon, stomach, breast and uterine cancers are symptomatic---and inoperable. But, if you get your health care in emergency rooms, the way that some Republicans advocate, the only care you will ever receive for cancer is Hospice---if you are lucky.
So, use your new ACA insurance. Get your Pap smear. Your mammogram. And, if you are one of the unlucky ones whose state governor or legislators decided that they would turn down the federal funds that would have allowed you to get health insurance, maybe you should get on the phone and give your elected representative a call and find out exactly why he or she wants you to be one of the unlucky ones who is not diagnosed in time.
True story, demographics changed for patient privacy. There are probably ten or twenty people out there at this moment saying "That's me!" At least, I hope there are.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Fri Apr 25, 2014, 09:03 PM (12 replies)
Hi, I'm doing some research for a proposal about a patient education program sort of like the "Back to sleep" for babies---the one in which infants were put on their back in order to prevent SIDS---in which i am trying to find journal articles and studies that suggest that sleep can have certain specific beneficial effects and that certain sleep positions can have certain beneficial effects for adults. Some of the stuff I have come across is interesting.
If anyone wants the journal links for research send me a private message. Remember that most of these are retrospective studies. If the study is prospective with a control I will try to say so.
Most interesting to me (because I have an interest in infant mortality) 2013 study in Ghana, they asked women who delivered about their sleep during pregnancy, found a statistical association between 1) snoring and pre-eclampsia and 2) back sleeping (as opposed to side sleeping) and low birth weight and still birth. Association does not prove causality. Suggests that sleep disordered breathing (twice as prevalent among Africans and sometimes unmasked during pregnancy) could contribute to poor pregnancy outcome. Another reason to side sleep in pregnancy?
A recent prospective in which participants have serves as their own controls: the participants were given a regular nights sleep and allowed to choose unlimited food. They tended to choose healthy food in healthy calories. On the other nights, they were sleep deprived. After sleep deprivation, the same participants tended to choose high calorie foods with more fats---almost as if their body turned up its hunger thermostat in an attempt to make up for sleep deprivation. The moral here: If you are on a diet, get a good night's sleep or you will have a hard time sticking to the diet. Second moral, telling someone with severe OSA due to obesity "Just lose weight" may be sort of mean.
Another recent prospective study in which participants served as their own controls. After a full nights sleep, codeine had a certain effect for pain. After being sleep deprived, codeine in the same people with the same pain was less effective. Moral: if you have chronic pain issues, be sure to get enough sleep.
Another recent study, 115 people had sleep studies and A1c, disruption in REM sleep was associated with poor glucose control. If you use CPAP and throw the mask off in the middle of the night, this may be why your blood sugar is so high. Moral, dream sleep may do more than help us remember things.
And this review article might be interesting too (abstract below):
Do all sedentary activities lead to weight gain: sleep does not.
Chaput JP. Klingenberg L. Sjodin A.
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care. 13(6):601-7, 2010 Nov.
AB PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the benefits of having a good night's sleep for body weight stability. RECENT FINDINGS: Experimental studies have shown that short-term partial sleep restriction decreases glucose tolerance, increases sympathetic tone, elevates cortisol concentrations, decreases the satiety hormone leptin, increases the appetite-stimulating hormone ghrelin, and increases hunger and appetite. Short sleep duration might increase the risk of becoming obese, because it does not allow the recovery of a hormonal profile facilitating appetite control. Lack of sleep could also lead to weight gain and obesity by increasing the time available for eating and by making the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle more difficult. Furthermore, the increased fatigue and tiredness associated with sleeping too little could lessen one's resolve to follow exercise regimens. SUMMARY: Short sleep duration appears to be a novel and independent risk factor for obesity. With the growing prevalence of chronic sleep restriction, any causal association between reduced sleep and obesity would have substantial importance from a public health standpoint. Future research is needed to determine whether sleep extension in sleep-deprived obese individuals will influence appetite control and/or reduce the amount of body fat
I have sleep apnea, so I know the importance of sleep. But a lot of people who do not have sleep disorders treat sleep as if it is a luxury that only rich people with nannies can afford. Single mothers working and trying to go to school and trying to raise their kids may stay up late at night cleaning the house once the kids are asleep even though they have to get up at 5 am in the morning. What I am reading should be a warning to all of us. When you sacrifice sleep time so that you can do all the 1001 things you have to do each day, you are harming your health---and in the long run that will not do you or your family any good. Let the clothes go unfolded. Get your 7 or 8 or 9 hours of sleep.
Sleep is not a luxury. It is as essential as water and food. If someone told you that you do not "deserve" food you would laugh in their face. If someone tells you that you do not deserve sleep, laugh just as hard.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Apr 21, 2014, 05:42 PM (1 replies)
The GOP House is crying foul. Any day now, you can expect to hear armchair Republican quarterbacks claim that Obama should not get credit for the Eight Million enrollees in the Affordable Care Act---Obamacare, their choice of words, so they will have to live with it this fall when they plan to make the 2014 elections a referendum on Obamacare---because the GAO says that Health and Human Services Director Sebelius turned to private charitable groups that promote public health endeavors like universal health care in order to help roll out the ACA when Congress denied her necessary funds.
Republicans said such solicitations were meant to circumvent limits on government spending imposed by Congress. But in a report to Congress, the accountability office did not give a legal opinion on the propriety of the fund-raising. Administration officials said it was legal. Under federal law, they said, the secretary of health and human services can encourage support for nonprofits that promote public health.
Let’s read that again. No laws broken. Nothing to see here. Move along. But wait. Here’s Fox alleging all kinds of wrongdoing. As in someone inside the White House talked to someone at a charity. Eeks! Conspiracy!:
Sometimes, I really, really despise Faux.
How about this? How about we credit Obama and public health entities like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Kaiser Foundation for our lucky 8,000,000. And, while we are at it, let’s give a hand for Sebelius and all the workers on the ground who helped people sign up for ACA, even though many of their states (read Texas) under orders from their local politicians (read Rick Perry) tried to make it all but impossible for them to reach the goal line.
I like that number. I am going to repeat it again. 8,000,000. It has given the GOP a bad case of sour grape-itis.
And now a question for all you folks who have insurance, thanks to the ACA---thanks to Obamacare: how do you feel knowing that funds given by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation may have assisted you in signing up for your new insurance?
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Apr 21, 2014, 02:35 PM (1 replies)
Sorry in advance. This is not a "feel good" thread. This is not a human interest piece. This is not designed to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy. This is a word of warning. There is an industry that some may feel tempted to call out friend. However, this industry has spent the last two decades stabbing us in the back with very sharp knives over and over again----
In 1995, George W. Bush becomes governor thanks to Texas voters who mistake him for his dad. Texas is in the middle of an HMO crisis. Managed Care plans have seized control of health care from physicians. Patients and doctors are fed up, scared, and, in the worst cases, dying from lack of appropriate health care. The legislature passes the first Patient Protection Act to stop HMO abuses. It is overwhelmingly popular. Then Gov. George W. Bush waits until the legislature is out of session to veto the bill. It is his first controversial act as governor. The veto is so controversial that when the act is brought up again two years later, he allows it to go into law---grudgingly. During a debate with Al Gore in 2000, he brags that he is responsible for the passage of the Texas Patient Protection Act—a bald faced lie. Ceci Connelly, the health insurance industry’s date-for-money (the other word is so ugly) in the news media leads the Gore is a Liar Big Lie that year. She does not report on the Bush lie. Bush gets into office. Attorney General John Ashcroft is assigned the job of going to court to get the Texas Patient Protection Act---about which Bush bragged and lied in the debate—struck down in federal court. Bush has now managed to kill the Texas Patient Protection Act twice. The law is designed to protect patients from HMO abuses which deny them appropriate medical care. These abuses---denying coverage for drugs, denying referrals for specialists, tests and surgery, sometimes after the fact—are used by HMOs to reverse cherry pick---drive sick people off their plans since they are not allowed to refuse to sign up people with pre-existing conditions.
We all know that Enron’s fate depended upon the 2000 election. However, few realized that the health insurance industry was also in trouble. Huge trouble. The first time the White House and both Houses of Congress were under Democratic control, health care legislation would be passed. This was inevitable. Newt Gingrich had helped the industry dodge the bullet in the 1990s, but one day the Dems would have power. Connelly’s job was the delay that event. She served her corporate masters well. That is why she is in the private sector now.
Medicare was the big threat to private health insurers, because it was a model for single payer. Under Bush, they began their War on Medicare. Bush allowed private insurers to raid Medicare, giving them outrageous sums of money for taking care of cherry picked healthy seniors aka Medicare Advantage. He allowed Big Pharm to raid Medicare by coming up with Medicare Part D, the outrageous plan that forced Medicare to pay Big Pharm exactly what it wanted for its overpriced drugs. No bargaining allowed. Drug prices soared. Medicare spending rose. For the first time in decades, people began to speak disparagingly of Medicare.
In 2008, the unthinkable happened (for the health insurance industry). A Democratic grand slam. All they could do was bribe, bargain, threaten and wheedle Washington politicians into giving them a seat at the table. They could alter the Affordable Care Act, but they could not prevent it its passage. And so they said “Hey, come on. Give us a chance. We want this to work.”
Now, the health insurance industry is at a crossroads. It desperately wants to keep collecting premiums from healthy people—and shunting all the poor, sick and elderly people into government programs. That is their business model. They do not prevent disease. They never have. When people get sick enough, they lose their jobs, they can not pay their premiums, they go on disability and Medicare. If the ACA continues as written and is never changed, the private insurers will do fine---
Until some government bean counter notices that the federal government is doing most of the actual health care spending and the privates are collecting premiums but not paying out as much in expenditures. Until the bean counters notice that a lot of health insurance "expenditures" are actually meaningless internal Q&A--paper pushing. And, as health care spending grows and taxes grow and people demand tax relief, eventually the government will look at the private insurance company's profits and say "Do we really need this middle man here? We can collect premiums from healthy people and not pay out much in health care spending, too." And once that happens, the very next Democratic White House/ Congress combo will author ACA II---and the privates will be out.
What is a concerned health insurance industry executive to do? Play along with the administration in power, do whatever it takes to keep the GOP in charge of at least one House of Congress and try to get a friendlier party back in control of Health and Human Services in 2016.
Ok, you can start crying "Burn the heretic!" But please keep this in mind: Big oil likes the GOP but Big Oil will always have a buyer for its product no matter which administration is in power. Banking may prefer the GOP, but we will always need banks. The private health insurance industry---if you think about it, they are not essential to life as we know it on this planet. They have to work extra hard to keep their house of cards standing.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Apr 21, 2014, 01:13 AM (10 replies)
Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite tool. They use it to pit one labor group---say Latinos---against another---say Irish--against another---say women---against another---say Blacks. The message is "Sorry guys, I have to pay you shit wages and give you no benefits because those____ will work for so little. It ain't my fault. Blame the _____."
In politics, it happens when people who are basically like minded get distracted with infighting. As in
"I'm vegetarian but I drink milk."
"Shame on you! Only a strict vegan can call itself vegetarian. Heretic!"
There is nothing wrong with having a playful debate with your friends and colleagues. It's good fun, and it sharpens the debate skills for when you really need them---when you have to talk to some right wing a-hole whose idea of debate is to cut you off at a gazillion decibels so that you can not get heard. But please remember, the other side has a point, too. And everyone is right on this one and everyone is wrong.
I like Obama because he is a strong commander in chief who will keep me safe.
I like Snowden, because he is protecting our right against unlawful search.
In a big world like ours, we get along because lots of different people take stands and then they work in opposition to others who take stands that appear to be opposing but in fact they are part of a balancing act. Sort of like good cop, bad cop. Obama has a role to play. In his heart of heart, he wants us to be free from unlawful search too but he has to keep us safe. Snowden wants us safe, too, but that's not his job.
If you think of each man in terms of what he DOES and not what he represents, it gets easier. I had to come to terms with these things young. When I was 8, living in Austin, all my Mom's civil rights friends loved LBJ. And all her UT male draft age friends hated LBJ---hated him so much they were running off to Canada and chopping off their toes to avoid going to VietNam. Same man. Two different things he was doing. I remember talking about it will my third grade teacher. That conversation helped a lot over the years. I feel for the conflicted LBJ, trying so hard to do the right thing in a country where it is never easy to do the right thing all of the time for everyone. Juggling civil liberties and safety is touch. I challenge anyone to do it better than Obama.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Sat Apr 19, 2014, 03:12 PM (11 replies)
Serious question. In this month's Texas Medical Association magazine, there is an article in which they warn providers that there is no way to know that a patient is actually covered by ACA insurance due to the premium payment grace period loophole. When the doctor and hospital call for eligibility, the insurer will say "Yeah, he is covered." The insurance is not required to mention that the patient is late with his last payment. The problem comes if the patient decides not to make last month's premium payment of $100 bucks after the surgery. If he never makes that payment, the health plan can then go back to the doctor and hospital and demand that all of its money be refunded. But before they take back the money they have to warn you "Your patient has not made a payment. Time is running out." If this happens, the article warns, doctors and hospitals are advised NOT to make the premium payment for the patient, at least that is the recommendation of the CMS.
Why not? What happens if you pay the $100 bucks for the insurance so that you get to keep the $5000 that you earned?
That is not a rhetorical question. CMS has said "Don't do it." Why not? Do you get hauled into court, charged with committing some kind of fraud? I.e "The patient only stayed in the hospital and had the life saving appendectomy because the hospital agreed to pay his $100 insurance premium. Had they not agreed to pay that premium, he obviously would have walked out the door and died." Yes, it sounds stupid. But replace "appendectomy" with something elective like "chiropractic manipulation" and maybe the insurance company has a case. According to Medicare, failure to do something as simple as charge a patient a copayment is "fraud" designed to drum up business and bilk the government out of money.
Lots of rural areas can not keep doctors or hospitals, because their poor and/or self employed residents do not have health insurance. In the 24 states that did not take the Medicaid expansion, rural areas are in big trouble. Is there any law that would prevent a rural county in Texas from coming up with the money to pay the additional premiums to buy all of its poor and uninsured citizens silver or even gold insurance under the Affordable Care Act?
How about large urban areas, like Dallas County, which often spend a lot of money running public health clinics for the uninsured? Could they legally pay the patient's portion of the insurance premiums for a private insurer?
Parkland is considering paying the Affordable Care Act insurance exchange premiums for some of its patients, a move that would help stem the tide of uncompensated care, WFAA reports.
Can Parkland in Dallas, which serves a huge population of sick lower income workers legally dip into its deep pockets and pay the premiums of its working patients who qualify for ACA so that it can then bill their ACA insurer for the care they receive at Parkland Hospital and its clinics? Keep in mind that a Parkland patient is not your typical patient. Your Parkland patient is the one that used to be called "uninsurable"--lupus, sickle cell, cancer, renal failure, heart failure--you name it. The privates hope that lack of money---i.e. the poverty that accompanies being chronically ill---will keep these folks off their plans in states that did not take the Medicaid expansion. They hope that they will be stuck on the so called "bronze" plans with high deductibles and no participating providers in their part of town and no drug coverage--so they never use their new insurance, they will just keep getting uncompensated care at their local Parkland. So, what happens if Parkland tells Blue Cross, Blue Shield "Here's your $50,000 check for this month's premiums for our 1000 patients who have you ACA insurance---and here's your bill for their $500,000 in care"?
We know that a third party without a financial concern can make the payments. And we know that insurers do not want any third parties making anyone's payments.
Three Louisiana health insurance companies have agreed to continue accepting federally-funded third-party payments for premiums, according to a statement from the LGBT group Lambda Legal, which with the New Orleans AIDS Task Force filed a federal class action discrimination lawsuit against the insurers.
Insurance plans will only make a profit under the ACA if the number of healthy people signing up outweighs the number of chronically ill people. In the United States, "Sick and Poor" is something you hear a lot, because illness and poverty go hand in hand. If you are too sick to work, you are poor. If you are poor, you can not well. That $50 to $150 means tested monthly premium may be all that stands between a private health insurer and bankruptcy---and it may be all the stands between life and death for one chronically ill individual.
Which matters more? The health of the health insurance industry that makes up the backbone of the ACA or the healths of the individual men and women whom the ACA is here to serve? Note: there is no answer to this one. It's just here to make us think. Life is full of hard choices.
Posted by McCamy Taylor | Mon Apr 14, 2014, 07:18 PM (6 replies)