By Request
An email received from one of my two readers (who aren't related to me):
So - post something about the new health care legislation!!!Huh?
Excuse me??
Um, what exactly are you talking about???
There was a ridiculously large, abstruse bill passed in Washington that no one actually read all the way through which included explicit provisions for payment for pseudoscientific religious nonsense (Section 125) along with financial incentives to states for not trying to address the issue of tort reform, among other provisions that don't actually mean anything until some unelected bureaucrats write the rules that will actually be implemented.
Once actually written and implemented, though, nothing in this bill does or says anything about health care. Rather, what is attempting to be reformed is payment for health care. Please note that I am even refraining from using the word "insurance" in this context, because "health insurance" as commonly used in this country at this time is not actually "insurance" in any linguistic meaning of the word. What we call "health insurance" is actually brokered payment for health care services.
Nothing about actual health care anywhere to be seen.
My bottom line response to the passage of this bill and other shenanigans currently being perpetrated in our nation's capital: move on; there's nothing here.
posted by #1 Dinosaur @ 1:46 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
My SIL died intestate just days before she would have been eligible for Medicare, had no insurance, and had so little in her estate that we were able to pay only about 30% on her medical bills. And this was MORE than insurance would have paid!
oh, this is sad, but true....
Right On, Dino.
Why would you give more incentives to states who already have tort reform that the backers said would solve all their problems? That makes no sense to give them more money.
Anon 5:17: The bill prohibits incentives to states that try to do anything to cap attorneys' fees. It says nothing about incentivizing states that already have tort reform.
As someone with pre-existing conditions from childhood that basically make me completely unable to buy insurance in the private market, I have to disagree with you there Dino.
There is a lot that I don't like about the bills floating around both houses that I don't like (mostly that they don't go far enough or fast enough), but they do take some important steps forward.
Of course, since there seems to be a better than even chance that the Republicans and the insurance lobby will kill it, there may end up being nothing to see (or perhaps something very important to see.)
JK
Why woud anyone support any legislation that allows one side to pay their lawyers whatever they wanted but capped the other side. That hardly seems fair.
Post a Comment
<< Home