Month: August 2009

Basking In The Absurdities

by Patrick Appel

Peter Suderman chuckles to himself:

 As the war over health-care reform rages on and Beltway commentators tut-tut over the decline of respectable political discourse, I invite observers everywhere to step back from their passions and policy preferences for a moment and bask in the glorious absurdities of the American political system: Watching the president of the United States make the rounds to deny that Congress is planning "death panels" while protesters compare him to the twentieth century's greatest monster is in some ways depressing. Looked at another way, though, it resembles nothing so much as good-old-fashioned entertainment. No screenwriter could possibly gin up a scenario this delightfully loony, and if one did, no one would believe it. 

Peter and Conor Clarke will be guest blogging for us next week.

Obama Decrees Primae Noctis

by Chris Bodenner

At least in the mind of one "Tea Party Patriot," relayed to his supporters:

I want to see some Braveheart moments in our townhall meetings. I want to see our men paint their faces blue and shout out freedom, like Mel Gibson playing the character, William Wallace, did.

Wonkette responds:

Please, please do this, guys!

What Seniors Should Be Worried About

by Patrick Appel

James Kwak describes why the medicare cuts have to happen:

[T]he need to reduce growth in Medicare spending stems from the simple fact that otherwise Medicare will blow through the entire Federal budget within the next few decades. Not reducing the Medicare growth rate is not an option. If I were a senior, or expected to be one in the next couple decades, I would very much want health care reform now, because the alternative will be much more draconian cuts to Medicare benefits in the future as the national debt explodes.

The View From Your Sick Bed

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I'm a chiropractor, in private practice since 1999. Your reader's description of the convoluted insurance authorization process struck a chord for me. It will never be in the insurance companies' best interest to automate this process.

That 11 step approval process doesn't just apply to hospital outpatient procedures; it is also the same method by which all private practice physicians must attempt to verify benefits and coverage for every one of their office visits and procedures. At the end of that 11 step process, the insurance company has one final trump card: that entire process is hypothetical anyway. Without fail there is a disclaimer at the end of every one of these conversations, "Actual benefits may vary. Verification of patient's coverage does not guarantee payment." Can you imagine any other business operating with those uncertain payment conditions?

We are small business owners. We often have 5 or less employees. Verifying coverage and benefits for our patients can take 20 hours or more per week. Another way to think of it: every hour of patient treatment time will require 30 minutes or more interacting with an insurance company.

The current insurance market provides a clear incentive to keep that process as inefficient as possible.

News From The Marriage Wars

by Chris Bodenner

The wife of Doug Manchester, a hotelier who helped fund the campaign against marriage equality in California, files for divorce. Jim Burroway writes:

Manchester said he made his [$125,000] Prop 8 donation to “preserve marriage” because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church” — the very same church that condemns divorce. His Catholic faith doesn’t restrain him from thumbing his nose at the Church in ending his own marriage, but it does serve as a convenient excuse for denying others the right to marry.  There’s a word for that, isn’t there?

Score One For The MSM

by Patrick Appel

The NYT grows some and plainly calls the "dealth panels" rumors false, which, of course, they are. Fallows applauds:

In general, even on the most extreme, out-of-the-realm-of-fact political claims, every powerful instinct in the news media shies from calling something "false" in favor of adjectives like "controversial" or "disputed," or sometimes "partisan." As many people have noted, and as I discussed even back at the dawn of time in Breaking the News, the "objective" instincts of the news media can tie it in knots when one side to a political argument is perfectly willing to say obviously false things. It's hard for mainstream publications to say outright that something is false or a lie. So it is impressive to see that the NYT has taken that step.