Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medicine. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Friday, March 14, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Washington State Rejects President's Proposals to Extend Canceled Policies - Unwilling and Unable...
It did not take long for Obama's proposal as detailed in
Obama Changes His Mind (But Only For a Year); You Can Keep Your Plan IF
Insurers Reinstate Them to blow sky high.
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State
insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.
State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected
President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health
insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies
will be cancelled at the end of the year.
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference
announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy
cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they
have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new
benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious
concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more
significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health
insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state
of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing
insurance companies to extend their policies.”
Unwilling and Unable!
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State
Actuary who writes ...
Hello Mish
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy
all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can
come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the
economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from
"Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a
name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual
market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual
market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible
plans with the lowest premiums. It was what consumers could afford to
buy. The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing"
insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants
to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day
notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have
already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be
surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;
Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state,
letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers,
letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT
testing before any changes become live. These things take time. Obama may
even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population
stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the
exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak
havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow
Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of
the disease.
WSA
Yesterday's Recap
Sens. Mary Landrieu
(D-La.) and Mark Udall
(D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even
IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that
going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was
dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to
throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep
your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how
their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally
change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?
An Answer and a New Question
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to
extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be
unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team
have known this?
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.Unwilling and Unable!
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...
Hello MishYesterday's Recap
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums. It was what consumers could afford to buy. The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;
Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time. Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.
WSA
Sens. Mary LandrieuAn Answer and a New Question
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/#fou62zMml9yfUB6C.99
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.Unwilling and Unable!
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...
Hello MishYesterday's Recap
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums. It was what consumers could afford to buy. The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;
Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time. Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.
WSA
Sens. Mary LandrieuAn Answer and a New Question
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/#fou62zMml9yfUB6C.99
Two hours, to be precise.
Washington State Rejects Obama’s Proposal
The Seattle Times reports State insurance commissioner rejects Obama’s proposal to extend canceled policies.State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler has rejected President Obama’s proposal to allow insurance companies to extend health insurance policies for people who have received notices that their policies will be cancelled at the end of the year.Unwilling and Unable!
Within two hours of President Obama’s news conference announcing the proposed administrative fix for Americans upset by their policy cancellations, Kreidler issued a statement rejecting the proposal.
“I understand that many people are upset by the notices they have recently received from their health plans and they may not need the new benefits [in the Affordable Care Act] today,” he said. “But I have serious concerns about how President Obama’s proposal would be implemented and more significantly, its potential impact on the overall stability of our health insurance market.”
“I do not believe his proposal is a good deal for the state of Washington,” Kreidler’s statement continued. “We will not be allowing insurance companies to extend their policies.”
I found out about the above rejection from a Washington State Actuary who writes ...
Hello MishYesterday's Recap
My dad introduced me to your blog a few years ago and I enjoy all your posts. In all the crazy nonsense that gets said today, I know I can come to your blog and find some common-sense thinking. Thank you.
I am an actuary at a health insurance company and the economic impact Obamacare will have on healthcare/health insurance is far from "Affordable". If anything, the Republicans should have asked for a name change on the bill.
I have experience in pricing policies on the individual market and for regulatory risk pools. When my company entered the individual market years ago, the best-selling plans were, by far, the higher deductible plans with the lowest premiums. It was what consumers could afford to buy. The government should not have been surprised at the feedback.
Obama today has relented to pressures by "allowing" insurers to bring the plans back for a year. He truly doesn't mean it. He wants to assuage the public without undermining his signature legislation.
Regardless, it is not uncommon for states to require a 60-day notice for filing prior to a plan launch. It's November 14th. Insurers have already passed the 60 day notification period to the states. I will be surprised if the insurers are even ABLE to re-instate plans;
Premiums would need to be developed, approved by the state, letters sent out, premiums collected, coordination with health providers, letters to the consumers. Unlike HHS, our IT teams have to go through UAT testing before any changes become live. These things take time. Obama may even be counting on it. Why? Because if the medically underwritten population stay on their "cancelled" policies, that means less traffic to the exchanges Obama wants to promote, and less cost-subsidization which will wreak havoc on exchange premiums in 2015.
Washington state has already declared they will not allow Obama's "fix" to go through. Rising premiums are only a symptom of the disease.
WSA
Sens. Mary LandrieuAn Answer and a New Question
(D-La.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced plans that would let people
keep their plans even IF insurers cancel them.
My first set of questions are simple: How the hell is that going to work? Is government going to take over every existing plan that was dropped?
Still More Questions
While pondering the above questions, I have a few more to throw at you, this time assuming Obama gets his fix and "you can keep your plan" but only for a year, and only if the insurer reinstates it.
Will insurers bother?
For a year?
Why?
What incentives do they have?
Bonus Questions
Has anyone (on either side of the aisle) thought about how their alleged fix was going to work in real life?
What constitutional right does Obama have to unilaterally change the law of the land, even if it's "only" for a year?
It appears we have some answers. Even IF insurers want to extend their plans (which most won't for reasons stated by WSA), they may be unable due to time constraints, state regulations, or state mandates.
This raises another question: Shouldn't Obama or his team have known this?
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/washington-rejects-obamas-proposal-extend-canceled-policies-unwilling-unable/#fou62zMml9yfUB6C.99
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
You're not Taking her This Time...
Former "Kansas" lead singer and producer John Elefante is using his newest single "This Time," to share the story of his adopted daughter's birth...
"Then the Lord began to speak: You're not taking her this time..."
Monday, September 23, 2013
Autumn in Central Park New York City, USA...
Missk, You should make this place, Central Park NY, USA, in the Fall, as one of your destinations and places to see...
You can almost see the ghosts roaming the roads and buildings in the windy Fall days... Stuff you love...
You can almost see the ghosts roaming the roads and buildings in the windy Fall days... Stuff you love...
Friday, September 20, 2013
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Media Buries Psychiatric Drug Connection to Navy Shooter...
Networks don’t want to risk losing $2.4 billion in ad revenue from pharmaceutical giants...
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 18, 2013
Infowars.com
September 18, 2013
Despite every indication that Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis was on SSRI drugs that have been linked to dozens of previous mass shootings, the mainstream media has once again avoided all discussion of the issue, preferring instead to blame the tragedy on a non-existent AR-15 that the gunman didn’t even use.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
We now know that Alexis “had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems.”
As Mike Adams points out, “This is proof that Aaron Alexis was on psychiatric drugs, because that’s the only treatment currently being offered by the Veterans Administration for mental problems. Alexis’ family members also confirmed to the press that he was being “treated” for his mental health problems. Across the medical industry, “treatment” is the code word for psychiatric drugging.”
Alexis also suffered from PTSD, blackouts and anger issues – all of which are treated with SSRI drugs. The most common form of treatment for PTSD is Paroxetine, which is listed as the number 3 top violence-causing drug by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP).
The Navy Yard shooter was clearly on some form of psychiatric drug, but the media has shown no interest in discovering its identity.
Despite it being reported that prescription drugs were found in the apartment of ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes days after the Aurora massacre, it took nine months to find out exactly what those drugs were. Like Columbine killer Eric Harris, Holmes had been taking Zoloft, another SSRI drug linked with violent outbursts.
The length of time it took to find out that Holmes was on Zoloft was partly because the media habitually shows zero interest in pursuing the link between anti-depressants and violence.
As the website SSRI Stories profusely documents, there are literally hundreds of examples of mass shootings, murders and other violent episodes that have been committed by individuals on psychiatric drugs over the past three decades. The number of cases is staggering.
Why is the corporate media so disinterested in pursuing this clear connection?
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the pharmaceutical giants who produce drugs like Zoloft, Prozac and Paxil spend around $2.4 billion dollars a year on direct-to-consumer television advertising every year. By running negative stories about prescription drugs, networks risk losing tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue.
While failing to ask questions about what SSRI drugs Aaron Alexis was taking prior to his rampage, the media instead blamed the shooting on assault rifles, even after it had been confirmed that no AR-15 was used by Alexis during the massacre.
FBI assistant director Victoria Parlave stated at a press conference on Tuesday that authorities, “do not have any information at this time that [Alexis] had an AR-15 in his possession.”
Despite there being no evidence that an AR-15 was used, the New York Daily News ran a front page headline yesterday morning entitled, “Same Gun Different Slay,” next to a picture of an assault rifle.
Hours after the FBI stated that no AR-15 had been used, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner, who previously blamed the Boston bombings on Alex Jones, continued to use an animated graphic depicting Alexis carrying an assault rifle during the massacre.
Anti-second amendment crusader Piers Morgan also erroneously blamed the shooting on “a man with a legally purchased AR-15, who just committed the same kind of atrocity as we saw at Sandy Hook, and Aurora,” during his CNN show on Monday.
CNN’s live news coverage also reported that Alexis had “recently purchased (an) AR-15 shotgun,” when in fact that purchase had been denied.
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post also falsely reported that an AR-15 had been found on Alexis after the massacre.
D.C. gun grabbers Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin also regurgitated the false claim that Alexis used an AR-15 during the rampage.
The U.S. press has once again behaved like state media in the aftermath of the Navy Yard shooting by pursuing the assault rifle angle – despite the fact that it was patently false – in order to bolster the White House’s gun control agenda.
In doing so, they have concurrently buried an integral aspect of mass shootings that needs to be highlighted as part of a national conversation – the clear connection between violent outbursts and SSRI drugs.
Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
This article was posted: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 11:29 am
http://www.infowars.com/media-buries-psychiatric-drug-connection-to-navy-shooter/
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Occupy Wall St. Christmas Song...
Here is One of Bailey's early works...
Love this talented smart girl.... She is awesome... Go Bailey...
Love this talented smart girl.... She is awesome... Go Bailey...
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Picture of the Day...
God bless America's Veterans, Patriots, Warriors and others who sacrifice so much to keep Her Free...
Saturday, September 7, 2013
God's Green Earth...
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Oregon "Death Panels" Expands for Seniors...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/16317-oregon-expands-death-panel-healthcare-system
Brian Koenig
The state of Oregon is rationing healthcare to Medicaid recipients, says Gayle Atteberry, the executive director ofOregon Right to Life, following a trend largely encouraged by President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Atteberry recently attended a meeting of the Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC), a committee affiliated with the Oregon Health Authority, and concluded that Oregon’s healthcare system is encouraging the denial of medical care.
During the meeting, a new death-panel type guideline was approved. “Death panel” is a term referring to ObamaCare’s panel of bureaucrats who decide whether or not certain Americans should receive medical care, through deciding which treatments to cover or not.
The guideline virtually summarizes the description of a death panel, stating, “Treatment with intent to prolong survival is not a covered service for patients who have progressive metastatic cancer.”
According to HERC, “In no instance can it be justified to spend $100,000 in public resources to increase an individual’s expected survival by three months when hundreds of thousands of Oregonians are without any form of health insurance.” In effect, the only option for these terminal patients is palliative care, an end-of-life alternative that provides relief from pain, symptoms, and stress of a serious illness. HERC explains:
The new guideline allows payment for curative treatment for nearly all cancer patients. Those patients with very serious, metastatic cancer who have such severe health issues (such as kidney failure or heart failure) that curative chemotherapy would be too toxic for them should not get this type of treatment. Patients who have been given many types of current curative chemotherapy but continue to decline in health and have a very limited ability to care for themselves, should also not get more curative chemotherapy.
The new guideline REQUIRES patients and doctors to have a frank and open discussion about the patient’s goals of care and what can really be expected from various care options, including chemotherapy. This conversation needs to cover the harms and side effects of treatments, and allow the patient to make choices about what treatments he or she wants based on his or her values, in shared decision making with his or her doctor. This type of discussion has been shown in scientific studies to improve cancer patients’ lives and allows these patients to spend more time with their families instead of in hospitals.
Commenting on the rule, Atteberry conceded that the Oregon Health Plan already has a guideline such as this implemented, but claims that the old provision affected a much smaller group. The new, broader guideline will likely be enforced more rigorously — which will transform a more isolated rationing system into a broader, death panel-guided system.
Meanwhile, the Oregon Medicaid system is happy to subsidize assisted suicide, offered to terminal cancer patients as an alternative to life-extending treatments. In 1997, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which permitted terminally ill residents to terminate their lives through the administration of lethal medications, prescribed by a doctor for that purpose.
Following a steady, upward trend, the number of assisted suicide prescriptions and deaths broke yet another record in 2012, with a 30-percent increase since 2009. That law, too, has come under fire. It is not set up to prevent elder abuse, says Margaret Dore, a lawyer from Seattle and the president of Choice Is an Illusion. In fact, Dore notes, assisted suicide statistics in Oregon are consistent with elder abuse.
“Oregon’s assisted suicide law, itself, allows the lethal dose to be administered without oversight,” Dore noted in a blog post earlier this year. “This creates the opportunity for an heir, or someone else who will benefit from the patient’s death, to administer the lethal dose to the patient without the patient’s consent. Even if he struggled, who would know?”
Even more disturbing, typically persons who take this route of “treatment” are seniors who are middle class or above, a group disproportionately at risk of being financially exploited. “Oregon’s law is written so as to allow such abuse to occur without anyone knowing,” Dore continued, adding that statistics on the rate of assisted suicides fall in line with elder abuse.
Coinciding with Oregon’s healthcare rationing system, there have been cases where patients have been refused medical treatment and instead offered assisted suicide options. The U.K. Telegraph reported on two Oregon cancer patients where this scenario occurred:
Barbara Wagner had recurrent lung cancer and Randy Stroup had prostate cancer. Both were on Medicaid, the state's health insurance plan for the poor that, like some NHS services, is rationed. The state denied both treatment, but told them it would pay for their assisted suicide. "It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told the media. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?" (Wagner eventually received free medication from the drug manufacturer. She has since died. The denial of chemotherapy to Stroup was reversed on appeal after his story hit the media.)
Still, ObamaCare proponents and other critics relentlessly attack conservatives and libertarians for painting government-intrusive healthcare laws as a pathway to “death panel” medical care.
Friday, August 30, 2013
God's Green Earth...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)