Entries Tagged 'Healthcare' ↓

Image; Argus Leader

I consider myself lucky to have met Martin a few years ago as a regular at the Touch of Europe. Unlike most intellectuals, Martin has a fantastic sense of humor, and loves to talk politics and baseball. Especially politics. I have had several engaging conversations with him over the years, and he has reinforced my populist views on several occasions. He told me about the work he was doing on heart disease over a year ago, and I am glad to see he is finally getting the press he deserves for his hard work. Martin’s philosophy on heart disease is simple;

Why treat the disease when we can prevent it?

Well, it is simple really, there is a lot more money to be made treating the disease. Why do you think our hospitals spend millions on building heart care facilities and pennies on research? One wonders.

It seems that Mr. Unruh promised more then he could provide;

Oh, but that’s the ‘catch’ of a quacktor-pracktor, “You’ll be fine if you just keep coming in to get ‘treatments’ ” I told my mom once “If bone-benders really worked, why do you have to keep going back to them for treatments?”

#25403 WEDNESDAY, Case 3, Unruh v. DeSmet Insurance

Dorothy and Henry Lentsch were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of a driver insured by DeSmet Insurance Company (“DeSmet”).  Unruh Chiropractic Clinic (“Unruh”) treated Lentsches for their accident-related injuries.   Prior to treatment, Lentsches executed assignments of the “proceeds” of their personal injury claims against the negligent driver.  The assignments were limited to the extent chiropractic services were provided. The assignments gave Unruh a right to the proceeds from any settlement DeSmet paid on behalf of the negligent driver.

Unruh served notices of the assignments on DeSmet.  The notices informed DeSmet that if Lentsches had any unpaid chiropractic services, DeSmet “must include” Unruh as a payee on any settlement checks.  Lentsches’ son, as attorney-in-fact for his parents, subsequently settled their claims and executed releases.  The releases provided that the Lentsches would be responsible for paying their medical care providers.  Thereafter, DeSmet delivered the settlement checks directly to the Lentsches, and Unruh was not made a joint payee.

Unruh contacted Lentsches and demanded that they pay their outstanding balances due for the chiropractic services provided.  Lentsches refused.  Unruh then demanded payment from DeSmet.  DeSmet also refused.

Unruh sued DeSmet, seeking to enforce the assignments.  DeSmet brought the Lentsches into the lawsuit as third-party defendants.  Unruh and DeSmet filed cross motions for summary judgment.  A magistrate court granted summary judgment in favor of Unruh and against DeSmet.  The court acknowledged that an assignment of a “claim” for personal injuries is invalid and unenforceable under the common law. The court, however, concluded that an assignment of “proceeds” is distinguishable from the common-law prohibition on the assignment of claims. Therefore, the magistrate court concluded that Lentsches’ assignments of proceeds were valid and enforceable.

DeSmet appealed to the circuit court, arguing that assignments of proceeds violate public policy.  The circuit court acknowledged a split authority in other states regarding the validity of assignments of proceeds of personal injury claims.  The circuit court followed those authorities distinguishing between assignments of proceeds and assignments of claims.  The court also found that there was no public policy reason to preclude an assignment of proceeds.  It therefore held that the assignments in this case were valid, and it affirmed the magistrate court.

DeSmet now appeals to this Court.  The Court must determine the validity of assignments of proceeds of personal injury claims.

Mr. James R. Even, Attorney for Plaintiff and Appellee A. Unruh Chiropractic Clinic

Mr. Larry M. Von Wald, Attorney for Defendant and Appellant DeSmet Insurance Company of South Dakota

I have a solution, why don’t we all just drop our health insurance tomorrow and refuse to pay our bills and doctors, that oughta drive down the price of healthcare;

I was very much taken back by the article in the June 6 Argus Leader regarding Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield’s plans for an 18 percent rate hike in South Dakota.

As with the 18th-century saying, “Let them eat cake,” the Wellmark spokesman who suggested in the article that a healthy 60-year-old just “grin and bear it on the insurance” is likewise oblivious to the problem.

According to the chart that accompanied the article, Wellmark has doubled the premiums on its individual health insurance policies in only six years (remember, you must compound, not only add, the numbers in the chart).

This last statement in this letter to the editor says it all;

Our health care system, especially when it comes to cost, needs a radical overhaul, something the recent federal legislation will not accomplish. The system is more than just a little bit broken.

One must beg the question of who represents the health care consumer? From my perspective, no one, no one at all.

I find it ironic that after the insurance industry beat the crap out of Washington and got their way the next thing they did was raise their rates, 18%, even though it was 18 times higher then the rate of inflation.

I guess this is what a ‘Big F’ing Deal looks like.’

Joe Biden Nails it!

Washington (CNN) – In the White House room where Abigail Adams used to air out her clean laundry, Vice President Joe Biden used some dirty language.

A microphone picked up Biden uttering the “F” word Tuesday in the majestic East Room of the White House, as President Obama signed the historic health care reform bill into law.

After delivering a rousing introduction of the president in which he praised Obama’s “perseverance” and “clarity of purpose,” Biden turned to embrace his boss.

As the crowd of approximately 300 people cheered wildly, Biden turned to Obama and said with a big smile, “This is a big f– deal!”

The president did not react to the comment, apparently aware that the microphones may have picked up the words.

Shortly after the ceremony, White House Press Secretary used his Twitter feed to try and diffuse any controversy.

“And yes Mr. Vice President, you’re right…” Gibbs tweeted from his @PressSec Twitter account.

An aide to the vice president pointed reporters seeking comment to Gibb’s tweet.

The vice president is known for unscripted moments, but not in such a high-profile setting as a bill-signing ceremony in the East Room. According to the White House Historical Association, first lady Abigail Adams was famous for using the room to dry her laundry. President John F. Kennedy lay in state in the East Room after his assassination in 1963.

Why is the US Chamber of Commerce spending soooooo much money to stick it to the little man?

The top-spending groups on health care reform generally spent about as much lobbying last year as they did in 2008 — with one notable exception. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce stood out not only for consistently outspending other groups, but also for nearly doubling its lobbying spending over the previous year. In the fourth quarter of 2009 alone, the group’s outflows easily topped the amount spent by any other group all year.

One wonders?

In a private meeting in the Capitol just now, a dozen or more House liberals bluntly toldNancy Pelosi that there was no chance that they would vote to pass the Senate bill in its current form — making it all but certain that House Dems won’t opt for this approach, a top House liberal tells me.

Of course, the Republicans have been spinning this like crazy, saying that some Democrats don’t support the bill for the same reasons they don’t, socialized medicine, which couldn’t be farther from the truth. A majority of Americans have said it should include a public option. Some polls were as low as 51% and some as high as 69% in support of the public option. I think they need to start from scratch and they should include two provisions (one that is a Republican idea and one that is a Democratic idea).

• Tax refunds for private insurance premiums, &

• A public option that ANY American can buy into and pay premiums thru payroll taxes

Without either one of those options, there really isn’t any reform. Reform should affect ALL Americans, not just the very poor or the very rich.

Attorney General Marty Jackley will be speaking at the DownTown Holiday Inn on Tuesday Jan 19th  from 12-1:30 PM.  $15. Includes a buffet lunch with dessert. Open to the public.

Mr. Jackley is one of 15 attorneys general that is challenging the constitutionality of the Nebraska Compromise and Florida to purchase Senatorial votes.   This is a historic meeting. If you would like to attend there is limited seating. Please RSVP to 605-332-1962 by 10:00 a.m. Monday morning Jan 18.

sponsored by teapartysd.com

I’m not sure if I will attend, but I think it would be an interesting presentation.

Guest post by Barbara O’ Brien

A few weeks ago the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis that said tort reform would save the federal government $54 billion over ten years. That sounds like a great argument for tort reform. But if you read the analysis more carefully, you see the picture is not so simple. For example, on page 4 of the analysis you can find this little bombshell:

“CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.“

The fact is, more than half of the states already have “reformed” tort. The CBO is saying that federal tort reform would not give us an additional $54 billion in savings. Rather, we’re already enjoying a significant fraction of the $54 billion in savings because tort is already “reformed” in most states.

Wait, you didn’t notice that health care costs are dropping because of state tort reforms? That’s because they aren’t.

What we see in states like Texas, which has enacted sweeping “tort reform” laws, is that while the number of lawsuits go down the overall costs of health care and health insurance keep going up — as much as in states that haven’t changed their tort laws.

It is true that states with “reformed” tort law have seen a big reduction in the number of personal injury lawsuits and jury awards, which does save some money. But the costs of caring for people injured by malpractice, mesothelioma cancer, or other injuries from dangerous products or workplaces, don’t go away. And if the responsible party doesn’t pay, usually the rest of us do — in higher insurance premiums and taxes.

And according to a 2006 Harvard study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, only 3 percent of malpractice claims are completely frivolous.

Every state has its own tort laws, and there may be many reasons to reform many of those laws. But reducing health care cost is not one of those reasons.

Here is a great video about Canadian socialized medicine;

Obama said during the campaign that he would change Washington, he failed to mention he was going to let Rahm short change the American public;

ROBERT KUTTNER: Rahm Emanuel, the President’s Chief of Staff, was Bill Clinton’s Political Director. And Rahm Emanuel’s take away from Bill Clinton’s failure to get health insurance passed was ‘don’t get on the wrong side of the insurance companies.’ So their strategy was cut a deal with the insurance companies, the drug industry going in. And the deal was, we’re not going to attack your customer base, we’re going to subsidize a new customer base. And that script was pre-cooked so it’s not surprising that this is what comes out the other side.

BILL MOYERS: So are you saying that this, what some call a sweetheart deal between the pharmaceutical industry and the White House, done many months ago before this fight really began, was because the drug company money in the Democratic Party?

And it looks like it is well on it’s way to become a polished turd;

WASHINGTON — After a long day of acid, partisan debate, Senate Democrats held ranks early Monday in a dead-of-night procedural vote that proved they had locked in the decisive margin needed to pass a far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s health care system.