Why would a private doctor be moonlighting as a reviewer for insurance claims in the first place? Nothing about this smells right, or even professional.
|
Why would a private doctor be moonlighting as a reviewer for insurance claims in the first place? Nothing about this smells right, or even professional.
doctors contract for sessional payments from various entities, ER, Insurers, hospitals, its the way the profession works
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
From the looks of it they have chaired several commities and Im sure this is more for the resume then the patient.
well of course, goes without saying, if you want to progress you have to be seen
On the backs of the sick and suffering?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I worked with medico's years ago, ethics is not taught in medical school so outside of procedure anything goes
Didn't know Youtube had a winger channel, and it was a nice speech but he should have added that the WE in WE MAKE LAW is in concert with the other branches of government, as well as the rest of the house. Its in the constitution, hollering aside, and ovations notwithstanding.
He was correct in pointing out the favorability of the congress is lower than roach poop. That's not just the liberals fault either!
You are joking right ? Read article 1 .... Congress Makes laws . No other branch of government does .Quote:
WE in WE MAKE LAW is in concert with the other branches of government
I figured it out . The libs really think it's in the emperor's constitutional powers to make laws .
The president has to sign or veto it, and the congress must VOTE to override in circumstance of a veto, and Scotus is the final arbiter of constitutionality on ANY law the congress makes that's challenged.
Like I said "in concert". That's the concept of checks AND balances.
When the congress fails to act, then the president can step up and failure of the congress to act is an obvious fact at this time, while you are hollering loud and doing NOTHING!!Quote:
The libs really think it's in the emperor's constitutional powers to make laws .
irrelevant to Gowdy's point . The laws the emperor changes are already signed into law and in the case of Obamacare ,SCOTUS has already ,albeit mistakenly ,has affirmed it's constitutionality . Still the emperor thinks he can change the law on a whim .
You failed to vote him out and Mitt in, so guess who has the discretion of implementation. Don't blame YOUR failure on the guy who won. But you will and have been doing just that.
Gowdy concede the discretion . That again does not address his point that the emperor has no power to change laws.
Saying it's so doesn't make it so. We have to wait on the SCOTUS ruling on that. Till then, its an opinion. Gowdy is a lawyer and former prosecutor and he knows that.
They should have stayed seated and reviewed the facts (Executive Orders).
GW Bush Executive Orders: 291
Obama Executive Orders: 168
And: "In an article published on April 30, 2006, the (Boston)Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.” (Presidential Signing Statements )
This was not a matter of signing statements . This is an issue of the emperor making significant changes that's contrary to statutory language in the ACA.
i don't understand your complaint according to you the legislation exists by fiat, how then can it not be altered by fiat?
You know very well Tom I posted several links citing the provisions of the law that allow the HHS secretary to make changes during the implementation, so whose fault is it you never bothered to read them?
Can We Learn From ACA Implementation and Improve the Law? | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41664.pdfQuote:
HHS will also have the ability to make changes through administrative authority, waivers, and new regulations.
As noted before even the congress could make changes if they had their act together.Quote:
For many of ACA's most significant reform provisions, the HHS Secretary and other federal officials are required to take certain actions, such as issuing regulations or interim final rules, by a specific date. As already noted, many of the key components of market reform and coverage expansion do not take effect
until 2014. Implementing some parts of the law will entail extensive rulemaking and other actions
by federal agencies; other changes will be largely self-executing, pursuant to the new statutory
requirements. ACA also creates a variety of new commissions and advisory bodies, some with
substantial decision-making authority (e.g., IPAB).
You could read it for yourself before you start hollering AGAIN. Facts do matter over perception and spin.
The Inspector General for HHS has released a study assessing the effectiveness of Obamacare’s Federal and State health insurance marketplaces.
The IG’s verdict? The exchanges aren’t working.
Two Government Audits Reveal Massive ObamaCare Failures - Investors.com
Because their doctors are no longer accepting their Obamacare health plans, patients are flocking to emergency rooms in California...increasing waiting times up to 5 hrs. KMPH-CA: ObamaCare Having A "Destructive" Effect On ERs & Cutting Access To Care In California - YouTube
Dr.Robert Subers said he cannot accept some Obamacare insurance because the payments are so low he would end up owing money out of his own pocket for each visit. “If it was supposed to increase access to care, Obamacare, and if it was supposed to bring down healthcare costs, I’m trying to find out where it’s done either.”
All part of the plan to nationalize health care.Quote:
payments are so low he would end up owing money out of his own pocket for each visit
THere goes more inaccurate Wikipedia references...
Oh By the way... Obamas Presidential Library is alredy been revealed...
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Bolibrary.jpg
turns out that HHS is not the only dept challenged when it comes to introducing IT . The Social Security Administration took on a project of modernizing the computer systems that handled disability claims. According to a new report, the program invested $288 million and found that there was no single person responsible for completing the project.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...compressed.pdf
Social Security spent $300M on 'IT boondoggle'Quote:
the program has invested $288 million over six years, delivered limited functionality, and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns
McKinsey issued their report in June, but it wasn't publicly released. Now the House Oversight Committee is looking into whether or not senior agency staff at the SSA tried to bury the report (ie another cover up) .
Think about this boondoggle . This is a case where the gvt is trying to service 11 million people . Yet they thing they can efficiently manage the health needs of 315 million Americans .
I think Cats is right, you will go through the pain all over again if the ACA is thrown out, so the clue is to get that insurance and hold it
that narrative they dare not speak is that they always intended this to be the 'camels nose under the tent' intermediate step for their ultimate goal of government total control and take over of the health care system.
And you know Tom that option might not be as bad as you think as long as there is room for private health insurance, all the low income people get covered and you get what you want
There has always been a growing consensus for a more inclusive health care policy Tom and its no secret where this is going. More inclusive is where everything is going, and not at the whim of JUST corporate interests exclusively.
The welfare class expects everything for free, while they sit home and watch cable TV, play the Xbox, surf the internet from their Obama phones and breed more of their kind. While collecting their welfare checks.
Then you have a simple expedient Tom stop paying them benefits, you see you too have this philosopy that there are plenty of jobs available but if that were so you wouldn't have unemployed people
If someone is going to get X plus a long list of benefits... or go to work for the same amount (welfare people are NOT highly skilled) but with fewer if any benefits... who is going to get up in the morning? And the Democrat party has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train going full throttle.
You see there is the problem I don't think anyone has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train going full throttle. That "train" exists out of a need, to ensure there isn't a population who is so destitute that it becomes a reason for civil unrest and disorder. I don't know whether it has succeeded where you live, it certainly has here and efforts to reform it are always met with resistance
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:49 AM. |