So, while the health care system itself is already overwhelmed and struggling to continue handling the pandemic. When there's already huge instability and uncertainty. When putting an entire industry out of work during a pandemic would put them through undue hardship that could be avoided when it's not a pandemic. When there are massive logistical issues to handle. When this requires legislation from Congress, who kind of have some other imminent issues on their plate.
That's when it's a good idea? Just because there's pressure? I mean shit, there was pressure back in August. Why not then?
I mean, it's not too expensive. It's cheaper than what we're doing now. I know that, and it's why I want M4A.
But like, once more, while there remains massive support for M4A in the abstract, as a theory, with huge gaps in specifics where people can fill them in with whatever they like. When you start getting down to brass tacks with specific proposals, you see that support dwindle considerably. Because for better or worse, America still isn't there yet.
Though I'd argue the ACA, and the expanded coverage and increased consumer protections, was a great "stepping stone" that helped nudge people in that direction. And I'll similarly argue that continued expansion and reinforcement of the ACA is the way to get there.
Sometimes America needs to boil the frog. The ACA is boiling the frog.
RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18
Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.
I do not really care about putting the insurance industry out of business... that can be alleviated by ensuring pay for some set amount of time for the people who have lower incomes in the industry.
ACA was a nice stepping stone, and some things have gone back... but it will be expanded hopefully again of course and I remain perhaps 65% hopeful we will get there.
Now can you enlighten me on what you have to say with Venezuela when it comes to our intervention and the backing of opposition people by our government.
Yep, the pro-Trump satire site also loves to push lies, just like his followers do.
Man, to think you guys spent years shilling for a lying fascist. Imagine supporting white supremacy to "own the libs."
Enjoy!!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...nline_manual_4
- - - Updated - - -
Of course it's a shitpost, that's all Trumpsters have at this point. I simply sometimes enjoy calling them out on their lies.

For the morbidly curious, dailyposter.con is David Sorita's new grift.
David Sirota was the former Bernie staffer than ran his campaign into the ground using the 30% strategy for the primaries. Then stole Bernie's donor list after being let go by the campaign.
SO it's no surprise that people who are constantly bad faith about politics, would cite him as a source.
hahahahah. What a crap story. Picking and choosing little snippets to fit an agenda
I love their part on denials but if you read the actual report.....
The current release does not provide information about why a claim was denied, making it difficult to assess what is driving the denials and why they vary so much. In these data, issuers report all denials including denials due to ineligibility, denials due to incorrect submission or billing, duplicate claims, and denials based on medical necessity.
At this point, researchers can't pinpoint exactly why a payer denied claims. There's a big difference between a denial for a redundant claim or one for services being deemed medically unnecessary. That barrier makes it difficult to figure out denial trends.
So basically they call out the horrific rate of denials when in fact they might be appropriate denials.
the next report mid 2021 will have full year 2020 denial reasons. And like all studies done before it will show the vast majority of denials will be for things like eligibility (sending to wrong payer/wrong insurance information), duplicate submissions and billing errors.
Just the fact that the vast majority of claims are not appealed point to submission errors being the logical reason for the huge amount of denials.
Here is the full report btw
https://www.kff.org/report-section/c...s-issue-brief/
The most interesting read is this part that clearly shows where denials occur normally in an insurance company
Connecticut Health Insurance Report Card
Connecticut publishes an annual consumer report card on health insurance carriers. The 2017 report card includes information about 4 HMOs and 8 health issuers that together cover 2.2 million state residents; about 83% of enrollment is from large group plans, 11% from small group plans, and about 6% from individual market plans. The Connecticut report card includes data on all claims submitted and denied, as well as major reasons for claims denials. Data are aggregated and shown at the issuer level.
In 2017, 10 issuers reported receiving 13.8 million claims5, of which 2.2 million (16%) were denied. For specific issuers, the denial rate ranged from 8.5% to 24%. Connecticut issuers also report on certain major reason categories for denied claims. On average, less than 1% of claims denials were on the basis of medical necessity; 9% of denials were because the claim was for a non-covered service; 13% of denials were for duplicate claims; another 13% of denials were because the claimant was not an eligible enrollee or dependent, and 16% of denials were for claims that were incompletely submitted. Reasons were not reported for nearly half of all denials (48.9%), classified in the report card under “all other miscellaneous.”
Of course this problem would all be solved with universal care under a single payer type system.
Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!