sarge87 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Senator DeMint (R-SC) went down to the floor of the Senate to move for a suspension of the rules to offer an amendment to the healthcare bill prohibiting using cash for cloture. DeMint and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) had originally co-authored and passed back in 2007 only to see it killed, would prohibit Senators from accepting targeted earmarks for their states in exchange for votes on legislation. This time, Senator Durbin made a motion to table Senator DeMint’s effort, saying he did not understand why Senator DeMint would think an anti-cash for cloture amendment was needed. Here's the roll call vote that was obtained from the Senate clerk on the motion. Senator Nelson voted against DeMint's amendment during the first roll call vote by voting YES for Durbin's motion to table the DeMint amendment.. It wasn't until after the vote count was taken, Senator Nelson, seeing there was enough votes without his YES vote supporting Durbin's motion to table, ran down to the Senate clerk and had his vote changed to NO supporting DeMint's amendment. Notice the line striking out his YES vote to NO. If there is any qualms about the authenticity of the roll call sheet, it is HERE for all to see in it's entirety. This is the kind of lying weasel we have representing us. He campaigns back home as some fiscal conservative moderate Democrat, but 700 miles away in Washington DC, he is a backroom dealing crook. Link to comment
strigori Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 The only thing I'm annoyed with is the dropping of the public option. The public option was an unsustainable pipe dream which would have been Medicare on steroids. Its an inevitability. Think about it. When all the baby boomers are retired and on medicare, with everyone else qualified you will have over half the population on it anyway. And when you actually look at the numbers, medicare is much, much more efficient than the private companies are. If the difference is you pay in taxes the same amount you would pay for ins coverage, whats the issue? The data doesn't back up your claims of efficiency. AMA's 2009 study National Health Insurance Report Card The AMA concluded a study of the top 6 insurance companies in the US and compared them to Medicare. Aetna Anthem/Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem/BCBS) Cigna Coventry Humana United Health Care (UHC) Timeliness of Payment from the time of received claims (in days/2009). Coventry - 4 Anthem/BCBS - 8 Humana - 9 UHC - 9 Aetna - 12 Cigna - 12 Medicare - 14 It takes Medicare a full 14 working days to pay their claims - still 2 full working days more than the private insurers. So this meme of more efficient will be even a larger moot point if they plan on adding another 50 million patients to their rolls, as they would have to hire additional staff and resources to serve this influx of people. If you ever had to deal with the IRS or the State Dept. with their bloated bureaucracies, you would know what I mean. Claim Denials in % of claims (2009) Aetna - 1.81% UHC - 2.02% Humana - 2.03% Cigna - 2.56% Coventry - 3.99% Medicare - 4.00% Anthem/BCBS - 4.34% This is the statistic that is the most important when buying insurance, denial of claims. Medicare has made some improvement over the last year, but still falls way under the average of the privately held companies (2.79%). Now we'll compare these numbers to an AMA chart from last years report card (2008). Medicare scored worse than all the privately held insurance companies, and nearly doubled the average of all in claim denials. The average claim denial by the privately held insurance companies was at (3.89%). The fact that Medicare denies more claims than privately held insurance companies should dispel the myth that the government is simply some benevolent entity, and privately held insurance companies are ruthless, profit-hungry fat cats, who are looking take your money without paying the piper. This flies into the conventional wisdom held in Washington DC and the media those greedy insurance companies are out to get you. When all the baby boomers are retired and on medicare, with everyone else qualified you will have over half the population on it anyway. It makes a huge difference when most Senior Citizens on Medicare still have some private coverage they are paying for. Medicare acts as a gap coverage for those people. We are talking about throwing uninsured people on the rolls where Medicare will have to pick up 100% of the cost of medical care instead of 20% - 50% of the costs if they had privately held insurance. Let's say I agree with you for a moment, which I don't, but for argument sake, let's say I do. We are going to put 50 million non-elderly people on the government dole for health care. My question to you is: Does the government have the right to tell those 50 million people how to live their lives (nutrition, lifestyle, bad habits, ect....) since they we the people are picking up the tab for their health care? Those numbers are misleading though. Medicare has to take everyone who is eligible. The others tend to reject people who they might have to pay put on. Also, while the medicare numbers for denials are larger for claims made for done treatments, the ins companies don't even let it go that far. If the chart says Also, by meaning efficient I meant in the capacity of money spent dealing with claims, and overhead. As to the 'back room deals' welcome to the world of politics. Its not pretty and its not good, but it happens on almost every single bill that has ever gone through congress. The only way it ever could stop is a constitutional amendment to give the president a line item veto, but we know that will never happen with the divisiveness of politics currently. Link to comment
sarge87 Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 The only thing I'm annoyed with is the dropping of the public option. The public option was an unsustainable pipe dream which would have been Medicare on steroids. Its an inevitability. Think about it. When all the baby boomers are retired and on medicare, with everyone else qualified you will have over half the population on it anyway. And when you actually look at the numbers, medicare is much, much more efficient than the private companies are. If the difference is you pay in taxes the same amount you would pay for ins coverage, whats the issue? The data doesn't back up your claims of efficiency. AMA's 2009 study National Health Insurance Report Card The AMA concluded a study of the top 6 insurance companies in the US and compared them to Medicare. Aetna Anthem/Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem/BCBS) Cigna Coventry Humana United Health Care (UHC) Timeliness of Payment from the time of received claims (in days/2009). Coventry - 4 Anthem/BCBS - 8 Humana - 9 UHC - 9 Aetna - 12 Cigna - 12 Medicare - 14 It takes Medicare a full 14 working days to pay their claims - still 2 full working days more than the private insurers. So this meme of more efficient will be even a larger moot point if they plan on adding another 50 million patients to their rolls, as they would have to hire additional staff and resources to serve this influx of people. If you ever had to deal with the IRS or the State Dept. with their bloated bureaucracies, you would know what I mean. Claim Denials in % of claims (2009) Aetna - 1.81% UHC - 2.02% Humana - 2.03% Cigna - 2.56% Coventry - 3.99% Medicare - 4.00% Anthem/BCBS - 4.34% This is the statistic that is the most important when buying insurance, denial of claims. Medicare has made some improvement over the last year, but still falls way under the average of the privately held companies (2.79%). Now we'll compare these numbers to an AMA chart from last years report card (2008). Medicare scored worse than all the privately held insurance companies, and nearly doubled the average of all in claim denials. The average claim denial by the privately held insurance companies was at (3.89%). The fact that Medicare denies more claims than privately held insurance companies should dispel the myth that the government is simply some benevolent entity, and privately held insurance companies are ruthless, profit-hungry fat cats, who are looking take your money without paying the piper. This flies into the conventional wisdom held in Washington DC and the media those greedy insurance companies are out to get you. When all the baby boomers are retired and on medicare, with everyone else qualified you will have over half the population on it anyway. It makes a huge difference when most Senior Citizens on Medicare still have some private coverage they are paying for. Medicare acts as a gap coverage for those people. We are talking about throwing uninsured people on the rolls where Medicare will have to pick up 100% of the cost of medical care instead of 20% - 50% of the costs if they had privately held insurance. Let's say I agree with you for a moment, which I don't, but for argument sake, let's say I do. We are going to put 50 million non-elderly people on the government dole for health care. My question to you is: Does the government have the right to tell those 50 million people how to live their lives (nutrition, lifestyle, bad habits, ect....) since they we the people are picking up the tab for their health care? Those numbers are misleading though. Medicare has to take everyone who is eligible. The others tend to reject people who they might have to pay put on. Also, while the medicare numbers for denials are larger for claims made for done treatments, the ins companies don't even let it go that far. If the chart says Also, by meaning efficient I meant in the capacity of money spent dealing with claims, and overhead. As to the 'back room deals' welcome to the world of politics. Its not pretty and its not good, but it happens on almost every single bill that has ever gone through congress. The only way it ever could stop is a constitutional amendment to give the president a line item veto, but we know that will never happen with the divisiveness of politics currently. The Republicans gave Bill Clinton the line item veto, the SCOTUS declared it unconstitutional. (Line Item Veto Act of 1996) Link to comment
carlfense Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 The only thing I'm annoyed with is the dropping of the public option. The public option was an unsustainable pipe dream which would have been Medicare on steroids. Its an inevitability. Think about it. When all the baby boomers are retired and on medicare, with everyone else qualified you will have over half the population on it anyway. And when you actually look at the numbers, medicare is much, much more efficient than the private companies are. If the difference is you pay in taxes the same amount you would pay for ins coverage, whats the issue? The data doesn't back up your claims of efficiency. AMA's 2009 study National Health Insurance Report Card The AMA concluded a study of the top 6 insurance companies in the US and compared them to Medicare. Aetna Anthem/Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem/BCBS) Cigna Coventry Humana United Health Care (UHC) Timeliness of Payment from the time of received claims (in days/2009). Coventry - 4 Anthem/BCBS - 8 Humana - 9 UHC - 9 Aetna - 12 Cigna - 12 Medicare - 14 It takes Medicare a full 14 working days to pay their claims - still 2 full working days more than the private insurers. So this meme of more efficient will be even a larger moot point if they plan on adding another 50 million patients to their rolls, as they would have to hire additional staff and resources to serve this influx of people. If you ever had to deal with the IRS or the State Dept. with their bloated bureaucracies, you would know what I mean. Claim Denials in % of claims (2009) Aetna - 1.81% UHC - 2.02% Humana - 2.03% Cigna - 2.56% Coventry - 3.99% Medicare - 4.00% Anthem/BCBS - 4.34% This is the statistic that is the most important when buying insurance, denial of claims. Medicare has made some improvement over the last year, but still falls way under the average of the privately held companies (2.79%). Now we'll compare these numbers to an AMA chart from last years report card (2008). Medicare scored worse than all the privately held insurance companies, and nearly doubled the average of all in claim denials. The average claim denial by the privately held insurance companies was at (3.89%). The fact that Medicare denies more claims than privately held insurance companies should dispel the myth that the government is simply some benevolent entity, and privately held insurance companies are ruthless, profit-hungry fat cats, who are looking take your money without paying the piper. This flies into the conventional wisdom held in Washington DC and the media those greedy insurance companies are out to get you. When all the baby boomers are retired and on medicare, with everyone else qualified you will have over half the population on it anyway. It makes a huge difference when most Senior Citizens on Medicare still have some private coverage they are paying for. Medicare acts as a gap coverage for those people. We are talking about throwing uninsured people on the rolls where Medicare will have to pick up 100% of the cost of medical care instead of 20% - 50% of the costs if they had privately held insurance. Let's say I agree with you for a moment, which I don't, but for argument sake, let's say I do. We are going to put 50 million non-elderly people on the government dole for health care. My question to you is: Does the government have the right to tell those 50 million people how to live their lives (nutrition, lifestyle, bad habits, ect....) since they we the people are picking up the tab for their health care? Those numbers are misleading though. Medicare has to take everyone who is eligible. The others tend to reject people who they might have to pay put on. Also, while the medicare numbers for denials are larger for claims made for done treatments, the ins companies don't even let it go that far. If the chart says Also, by meaning efficient I meant in the capacity of money spent dealing with claims, and overhead. As to the 'back room deals' welcome to the world of politics. Its not pretty and its not good, but it happens on almost every single bill that has ever gone through congress. The only way it ever could stop is a constitutional amendment to give the president a line item veto, but we know that will never happen with the divisiveness of politics currently. Also, I'm not sure what the "timeliness" chart has to do with economic efficiency. I'm far more concerned with how much the overhead costs are per person insured than how fast the hospital gets paid. If I am recalling correctly, Medicare has lower operating costs than the leading insurers. (which is hard for me to believe . . . but numbers are numbers.) Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 I don' tend to be political at all nor do I lean to the left or right, but seems to me that republicans have kept quiet until a Democrat took office... to me the big picture is the our government as a WHOLE is a big shame, they are all out for their greater interests right now anyway. Or did you mean a sham?? Shame or sham, either way you are still quite correct!! And as H.L. Mencken said, "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are." Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 The only thing I'm annoyed with is the dropping of the public option. So in other words, what you're really annoyed with is that the you, or those you elect to supposedly represent you, won't have the option of stealing even more money from people to fund what you believe is a "right" to healthcare!! Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Haddn't dropprd by here in awhile and just wanted to see what SOCAL was up too. Hope you had a nice X-Mas SC and was just wodering are you X-Military. T_O_B Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Haddn't dropprd by here in awhile and just wanted to see what SOCAL was up too. Hope you had a nice X-Mas SC and was just wodering are you X-Military. T_O_B Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too, T_O!! Yes, I was in the military. Served 4 years in the Corps and got out in 02. Link to comment
Recommended Posts