Call us skeptical, but Section 107 looks like a loophole for single-payer supporters to claim that private insurance is not being eliminated, even as the main sponsor says he wants to put health insurance companies out of the business. There is virtually nothing left on the table but a few crumbs. Harris called it “supplemental insurance,” which sounds a lot like Medigap policies, but the reality is likely far different than that.Is this special kid-gloves treatment for Kamala Harris? Here's the explanation of the Pinocchio system.
Given the back-and-forth between Harris and Tapper, we can’t quite award Pinocchios. But her language is slippery. She could more forthrightly admit that the health plan she supports envisions virtually no role for the private insurance now used by nearly 220 million Americans.
One Pinocchio means: "Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods. (You could view this as 'mostly true.')" She doesn't even get one?
Two means: "Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Similar to 'half true.')" I think the fact check sounds more like a 2 Pinocchio rating.
Three means: "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of 'mostly false.' But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three." If Trump were equally unforthcoming and truth-suppressing, would he not get 3 Pinocchios?
I think Kamala Harris is going to become irrelevant if she isn't confronted and forced to improve. I wonder if she finds the polls mystifying.
पोस्ट्स
८८ टिप्पण्या:
Eh. I doubt that Kessler is being any easier on Harris than he would be on any other Dem candidate. He's a shill for Democrats in general, not her specifically.
"Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Similar to 'half true.')"
That describes like 80% of WaPo's content.
As for Kamala, it's clear she isn't paticularly practiced at the game. If she can't handle the low and slow softballs lobbed by the likes of Tapper she's in trouble.
It's WaPo. Where Journalism Dies in Democratic Dank.
All D's get the soft treatment at WaPo.
If slippery is an out, how about bananas?
Are we allowed to discuss blow-jobs on this Kamala Harris thread? I don't want afoul of the moderation by discussing blow jobs on this Kamala Harrs thread.
WaPo will give Kamala a blow job.
I don't think Kamala's a good person (I've ranted about her here before). She's good looking - I find her attractive even though I don't like her - and has some charisma, but she is not smart & her political career to date has been a bunch of gifts. She didn't win the Senate seat because of she did as California's AG (where she made self-inflicted mistakes, was corrupt and a disgrace). She graduated Hasting Law w/o honors and then failed the bar. She is just, not, very smart. Is being a genius a big help? Probably not - Kirsten Gillibrand may be one of the 5 or so smartest people ever to run for U.S. president and doesn't have a chance. But I think there is a minimal bar, and Kamala is just not smart enough. I used to be scared she could win. Not any more (and yes, I think Biden while not much above that bar, is a lot smarter than Kamala). Amazed that no one wants to point this out.
Should read "run afoul" above.
She needs a catchy slogan.
How about...."If you like your private insurance, then I'm not going to let you keep it."
What?? Too soon?
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
At least Harris is getting this kind of attention -- apparently Booker's campaign is wringing its hand that no one is treating their candidate like a credible President. I think he massively underestimated how much damage he did to his image when he decided to start shrieking at the Homeland Secretary about "shithole" countries. Even vis-a-vis the Kavanaugh confirmation, he and Harris were basically on the same page about everything, but I vaguely recall him coming off as significantly more unhinged than she did.
Ironically, I think some of this is just a desperate pose to appeal to the loony Left, and his actual character is somewhat more measured. But it's hard to take the man seriously when he repeatedly seems to be losing his cool in public. Trump is coarse and pugnacious, sure, but he never actually loses control in public.
Mr Megan McArdle (Peter Suderman) over at "Reason" wrote about this earlier. In part he said:
In a separate interview with Tapper in January, she was asked about eliminating private coverage under Medicare for All. In response, she cast insurers as frustrating bureaucratic middlemen that she wanted to get rid of. "Let's eliminate all of that," she told Tapper at the time. "Let's move on." First, she wanted to get rid of private insurance and move on; now, she wants to argue over whether or not the bill eliminates every last tiny bit of private coverage.
This is a revealing moment. The politics of Medicare for All have placed Democratic presidential hopefuls in a genuinely tricky spot. And the various ways in which Harris' rivals have attempted to navigate the issue suggest that, over time, the party is likely to settle for something less than full-fledged single-payer, even as a core group of diehards remain in support of the idea.
Harris' evasive response, in contrast, mostly tells us about Harris. And what it suggests is that she would rather avoid acknowledging or defending the policy trade-offs she apparently favors—and would prefer to distract and mislead people instead
Wait, WHY wouldn't everyone have to buy supplemental insurance the way we old people do now?
Is everyone just going to get Medicaid for their supplement?
You can't grok the Trump era without understanding that calling her Kamala "Heels" Harris is going to be a huge part of his appeal to the lower classes. The SWPL bracket, of course, will be horrified. How dare this OrangeMan cast aspersions on this woman, her integrity, and her purity! Everyone else, and especially black Americans, will have some measure of amusement from it.
The Democrats have kept power because they demanded that Republicans treat the Clintons and Obamas with respect they in no way merited. Whenever a Republican is in power, of course, the gloves are off. That era is dead. They can try to silence talk about the filthy behavior of Kamala Harris and Hunter Biden, but they'll fail. Illiterates are MUCH more likely to speculate luridly about a candidate when they mercilessly suppress all official talk of their past. And when they desperately try to say that Kamala Harris is truthful and pure and KNOW YOUR PLACE, PROLE, that only plays in deeper to this dynamic.
You can't discuss the absurd worship of Kamala Harris that this article exemplifies without discussing the Obama playbook, which was
10 IF X ="This candidate is perfect"
THEN = "This candidate never lies"
ELSE: "SHUT UP RACIST!"
I think instead of Pinocchio’s and nose icons, WAPO needs a special sky penis icon and “Blowjobs” terminology when referring to the absolute garbage that K. Harris spews...
We rate this 3 blow jobs.....
'She graduated Hasting Law"
Wow Hastings is selective. I wanted to go there but score wasn't good enough, unless I was a minority.
Probably just as well.
I can’t see Harris using a straw; but I can see Booker using one.
I guess Ms. Harris is content to run along in 4th or 5th place. Waiting for Biden to step aside and see where his support goes.
There is a structural problem with Kammy's campaign.
She made her political ascent as a "tough prosecutor." This worked well for her. But a few years ago, the Dems went south on crime and punishment. They want felons to vote, they think Cops are bad, they think there's too many people in jail, criminal enforcement is unfair to blacks, etc, etc.
"Tough on Crime" was Kammy's best play, but Dems don't want that anymore. So she stumbles on all the other stuff.
You can "test" these "liberal" mountebanks by just asking questions, such as, "Can you prove that, logically?" Shuts 'em up almost every time--or at least for a few minutes until they can regroup and riposte with, "Racist!" or "Hate-monger!"
IF the person speaking calls it "Medicare for All" instead of "Single Payer," you know from the outset that they are misrepresenting their position.
Kessler should have awarded Pinocchio's just for that.
WaPo fact checker is op-ed. Usually it deals in agitprop and distortion thinly disguised as truth seeking. They pretty much tell you that up front. Identical to ‘Believe it or not’.
would prefer to distract and mislead people instead
What else? None of them can explain "Medicare for All" since the numbers don't add up.
Obamacare is Medicaid for all. Except, of course, all those employer funded plans that were supposed to be rolled into Obamacare .
The Democrats knew that, after the clusterfuck rollout, union members would be hunting Democrats with dogs if they followed through. Oregon spent the $200 million they were given to roll it out and nothing happened. It never appeared but the money was all spent.
Did Willie Brown go hard or easy on her? He was her coach, right? Yeah, right, her "coach?"
Republicans fail media fact-checks when they say something objectively truthful that could possibly be misperceived by someone. Democrats pass media fact-checks when they say something willfully deceitful that has a grain of truth somewhere in it. It’s not unfair once you understand the modern media has become interchangeable with the Democratic Party in the same way that newspapers in the nineteenth century unapologetically named themselves after the party and printed nothing but party propaganda. Everyone today understands it’s the Washington Post-Democrat.
If she's serious about getting the big job she might consider the LBJ strategy. Try for the big job on your own; learn that people outside of your jurisdiction don't like you, meaning you won't get it on your own; so settle for the time being by taking a couple of steps back with the hope of taking one biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig step forward; swallow your pride and agree to play second fiddle on the ticket. When first fiddle gets the big job, then arrange to have him murdered.
"When Clare Boothe Luce later asked [LBJ] why he would accept the nomination to be number two, he answered: 'Clare, I looked it up: one out of every four Presidents has died in office. I’m a gamblin’ man, darlin’, and this is the only chance I got.' He said much the same thing to trusted journalists. So it was clear why Johnson would run with the 'sickly' John Kennedy. He knew about the ailments that could threaten his [Jack's] life."
Like a bullet-in-the-head kind of ailment.
I think Kamala Harris is going to become irrelevant if she isn't confronted and forced to improve.
If she is confronted, she’ll likely implode.
Isn’t that what the left-wing media is telling us?
They have to keep her candidacy hermetically-sealed until Biden can tap her for VP.
The bottom line is that MEDICARE for all equals a scaled up VA system without escape except for millionaires.
step 1. it kills all private insurance for anything MEDICARE covers which is almost everything. however, nothing says that MEDICARE has to treat you for the things that are covered. e.g. rationing
step 2. under monopoly pricing, private docs have to accept the reduced payment or work only for cash customers. docs become employees
step 3. nationalize hospitals that go bust under the lower payment scheme
step 4. ration
the only out is to pay cash for a black market doc
Leftist policies never have any costs.
That’s why they can never understand why no one has implemented them yet.
Medicare for All as a slogan is inherently ambiguous. Does it mean everyone will have Medicare? Or does it mean everyone will have the option to choose Medicare?
Pete Buttigieg's handled the question better a few months back:
"STEPHANOPOULOS: How are you going to sell that when President Obama, he didn't get rid of all private health insurance, he said if you like what you have, you can keep it. He was scorched by those who couldn't keep their plans. You would have single payer, eventually, that would mean doing away with everyone's plans. How can you possibly sell that in this country today?
BUTTIGIEG: Well, you had to make sure that it leads to better results. And if we need a road, a gradual way to get there, then we can start with Medicare for all who want it by making some version of Medicare available on the exchanges for people to opt into, as part of the pathway to Medicare for all so that you can try before you buy so to speak as a country."
This is what Nancy Pelosi was calling the "public option" back during the Obamacare debate 10 years ago. Now Buttigieg is being very direct about the public option being a pathway to single payer. I'd like to see a Democrat candidate argue for the choice of private insurance being a feature of the system and not a pathway to something else.
But the race does not always go to the most coherent politician with the most practical proposals. Will it help the Democrats to offer more specifics than Donald Trump is offering? Probably not.
I don't think she can improve. Which is good, because her record is that of a wannabe tyrant with no moral compass other than her own ambition.
Here is the true definition of "Pinocchio"- something you give a Republican when he lies.
Kessler would give her a blow job if Harris had a dick. He certainly gave them to Hillary.
BUTTIGIEG: Well, you had to make sure that it leads to better results. And if we need a road, a gradual way to get there, then we can start with Medicare for all who want it by making some version of Medicare available on the exchanges for people to opt into, as part of the pathway to Medicare for all so that you can try before you buy so to speak as a country."
You can be sure that, as envisioned by any of the current crop of Democrats, "the pathway to Medicare for all" is strictly a one-way trip. No matter if the "try before you buy" demonstrates it to be an unmitigated disaster, they'll keep pushing and pushing and pushing...
This early season politics is like the NFL draft- one, it’s for losers and two, no matter how much you love only a couple of them are going to make it.
A older friend has just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Medicare has denied coverage for his chemo.
And here I thought it was the Republicans who "want you to die quickly."
The problem for Harris fans is it may be if she doesn't get the kid glove treatment she's going to get crushed by Biden before her candidacy can really get off the ground. Biden's really opened up a big lead in the polls.
@Bay Area Guy:"Tough on Crime" was Kammy's best play, but Dems don't want that anymore.
They will let her use it in the general election, and the media will go along. Then she'll evolve in office. Just like Obama, John Kerry, and the Clintons did with their Christianity and opposition to gay marriage.
"A older friend has just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Medicare has denied coverage for his chemo.
"And here I thought it was the Republicans who 'want you to die quickly.'"
I'm sure any of the rich "liberals" bankrolling the candidates who push Medicare for All would be more than happy to pay for your friend's medical care.
Kessler is just another Lefties posing as an "Objective Journalist" by posing as a "Fact Checker". Look facts are facts, they're either true or not. Getting into this "Somewhat false" "Mostly false" "A little bit false" is just OPINION. Its not facts. Its bullshit.
Its just another way for the Left-wing MSM to put their on the scale, while PRETENDING To be objective and neutral.
Kam has the perfect identity "black woman". Sadly, she's not ready for prime time. Maybe a Veep slot.
This leaves Black Folks with only 2 choices: Slow Joe or Booker. Wow. Things are looking good for Biden in Dixie.
Golly, it's like there is a piece of information missing in Althouse's analysis. As if Harris was elevated above what she merited by something else, like maybe trading favors for promotions.
But she's censored any talk of trading blowjobs for jobs, so we'll just continue to pretend we don't understand why Harris doesn't appear qualified to even run for President.
...Gosh, it's so strange that Harris appears to have been lifted up beyond her merits, what could it be, could it be... oh well. We were going to give her an affirmative action pass anyway, right?
DC insiders refer to her as Heels Up Harris. Her Democrat opponents are going to bring it up, and you'll be an awkward position of censorship, although not as bad as her - do you think the perspective in her interview was an accident? The male looking down and the female looking up at him from her knees?
"A older friend has just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Medicare has denied coverage for his chemo.
Chemo doesn't do much good for pancreatic cancer but I am unaware of it ever being denied.
And it's weird how we still take the likes of WaPo or the NYTs seriously as information brokers. Would we bother to fisk a fact check from InfoWars? Then why WaPo?
the only out is to pay cash for a black market doc
Unless they outlawed cash practice, there are lots of doctors dropping Medicare and insurance. Massachusetts had a bill introduced to require docs accept MassCare as a condition of license.
Many docs, especially in the northeast have multiple state licenses.
If Harris is to get ahead and stay ahead in the poles, she needs to stop blowing these questions.
She is female. She is black-ish. What more are we asking, haters?
Kamala Harris knows what Willie Brown tastes like.
That's the only reason we're even talking about her.
Her kind of crazy plays in California, mostly.
Are there any well known examples of her being tested/challenged and the outcomes?
I'm not talking about her senate campaign. In terms of political orthodoxy, there wasn't a sliver of difference between her and her opponents. She did for Willie and Willie did for her. Viola! Senator Harris.
Are there any well known examples of her being tested/challenged and the outcomes?
She's awesome at non-verbal communication with her mouth full.
"I think Kamala Harris is going to become irrelevant if she isn't confronted and forced to improve."
Why? Slow Joe was just as ignorant and dim-witted, yet O picked him as VP. Pragmatically.
Hilarious encounter on FaceBook weeks before the 2016 election. Liberal female, very arrogant in her ignorance, asked if conservatives had the equivalent of a "fact check" and seemed giddy that we Deplorables were too "backward" to even entertain the idea.
She was so smug about I couldn't find the Mercy to explain to her the entire concept was a trap. For instance, we are supposed to accept that WaPo has "layers of fact checkers" but that this one column is "more factful" than the others simply because they have "Fact Check" in the header.
She also asserted that she was more educated than me, while I was giving her remedial advice on how to cite a source and that paragraphs could be her friend.
It's sometimes better to let your enemy wallow in their hubris. Unfortunately (or not), FacePlant deplatformed me a week before the election so I didn't get to add her tears to my Election Pron file.
Anthony Weiner is has been released from a halfway house after sexting a 15-year-old girl.
I gave him the number for Heels Up Harris.
She gets a cart, Trump walked with a broken leg.
"It's not doing Kamala Harris any favors to go easy on her. She needs to be tested and challenged if she's to be the nominee."
Why not? Didn't it work okay for Hillary Clinton? Oh ...
Ah what can I say? At five foot two, Kamala Harris is going to come up a bit short in this Presidential sweepstakes. A Democrat machine baby nurtured in the hothouse (or at least at the hands of the master Willie Brown) of the Democrat party in California, she's never really had to go for it in a contested race.
She's a weak horse.
Didn't you know its already over
she is running for Biden's VP
Burney and Buttboy Neuman don't sell with the blacks
Beto cratered
Nobody cares about the old white liberal ladies
Biden needs some interstitial gravitas
and a big fat Liberal from liberalland to deliver spartacus speeches to the AOC crowd of know nothing commie climate radikals
Abrams is still out there if he needs a lot more weight.
Again (regarding Kamala Harris and how she is treated) -- soft bigotry of low expectations.
This is the woman, we were told days ago, who objects to being called a black woman candidate? Yeah, kinda sensitive... If you can't call a black woman a black woman today, you're be bending over backwards because she I sensitive. Not a good sign in a presidy (I think she thought she would have it as easy as Obama, but he is a black man. Also, she got the jussie smollet case wrong.
It is impossible to know who is going to win the democratic nomination at this point. Nothing matters right now. All of these words are for donors.
Democrats are about to start getting indicted in not small numbers. Buttigieg and democrats who haven't been in DC are going to benefit from this.
There are 22 people in the primary and we haven't heard 10 words from 12 or so of them.
Biden's goose is cooked. He is a fish flopping around out of water waiting to die. Biden's son was working with Whitey Bulgers son and Kerry's Son in law to "help" Chinese companies. We know the Chicoms have been in bed with the democrats at least since Clinton. This is going to be as big a scandal as spygate.
In 2016, the Washington Post Fact Checker gave 3 Pinocchios to a Republican presidential candidate, Carly Fiorina, for saying she started her career as a secretary and went on to be a CEO. Oddly, the Fact Checker article confirmed that Carly Fiorina ... started as a secretary and eventually became a CEO. When "many readers" pointed out Fact Checker's factual error in claiming Fiorina was wrong about the facts when she was right, Fact Checker doubled down and insisted that the 3-Pinocchio rating was correct.
Are you a racist and a sexist to challenge Kamala?
Only Trump can tear her apart because Trump has been an accused racist and sexist well before 2016, and he won. Now he is Teflon-coated, there is nothing the Fake Media and Democrats can do about it.
Achilles, it is a big scandal if the Fake Media reported and pursued it. If the politicians were Republicans, Fake Media would fabricate October Surprise scandals. If the politicians were Democrats, the Fake Media would see nothing, hear nothing, and report nothing. Ergo a scandal-ridden administration was "scandal free".
Good find, John Althouse Cohen. I forgot about that one.
WaPo fact checker - where Journalism dies in darkness!
Neat opinion piece by Farhad Manjoo recently arguing that a woman should be elected president essentially as reparations for discrimination. Seriously.
(I thought John the gender activist would be all over that one...)
One question about “Medicare for all.” Given that some parts of the present reimbursement schedule barely permit a doctor to meet expenses, if that, have this country’s doctors weighed in on the plan?
have this country’s doctors weighed in on the plan?
5/14/19, 9:10 PM
The older ones are quitting or going to cash practice. Most of the younger are on salary Which is resulting in high levels of burnout. I talk to young docs. Most I talk to are unhappy with their practice. I expect applications to crash in a few years when the student loans are due, and the word gets out.
> full-fledged single-payer
centralized control is the goal.
Doesn't matter what it costs, the point is every election will be about control of the goods and which party can deliver the most the key voting block.
> public option
that means "throw the public's money at it until every other option is dead"
Then back to point 1, the true goal.
Now, what is the true goal of "climate control"?
phantommut said, "[Harris's] record is that of a wannabe tyrant with no moral compass other than her own ambition."
Very nicely sums it up. My opinion exactly.
Why? Slow Joe was just as ignorant and dim-witted, yet O picked him as VP. Pragmatically.
I'm still mystified by that choice. Conventional wisdom is you pick a popular politician from a purple state you need to win. The press said it was because Biden had extensive foreign policy experience which... well, it isn't true except by comparison to Obama.
By the same token, I don't see how Harris fills out the ticket for Biden. She's a local politician from a state he can't lose. She has no experience with military or foreign policy. The only thing she brings to the ticket is her sex and skin color. But that's mostly a benefit in Democratic primaries. By the time he picks his VP, Biden is looking at the general election and seeking someone who'll help with voters in places where Hillary lost by a few thousand votes.
Medicare for All will never work if administered the same way that CMS pays providers today. The traditional method of medical payment negotiating has employers or insurers asking for discounts off hospital-set charges that rise every year and generally are many times the actual cost of a service. Private-insurer payments, even with those discounts, can be double or triple what Medicare pays for identical services. If there is no private insurance market, hospitals could not operate on one-third of today's cash inflow.
Concisely, in today's world, all Medicare and Medicaid income results in real losses but private plan's make up the shortfall. So without private insurance priced and based upon real risks, there can never be a "Medicare for All."
As Mark Cuban points out, the extreme proposals coming from the leftist agenda of the 9,000 Dem candidates, including Medicare for All, are just “headline porn.” “I don’t think they believe what they’re proposing is passable,” he says.
Would it be inappropriate to say that Harris is a perfect example of the Peter Principle?
Tied with the Mayor Peter Principle.
Harris - Buttigieg, there’s a logo nobody wants to see.
@gadfly, did you just agree with me?
I think Kamala Harris is going to become irrelevant if she isn't confronted and forced to improve.
The way the press dealt with candidate Obama when he was like this, was to declare him "pragmatic". On the one hand, there was this set of facts. On the other hand, there was this opposing set of facts. In the middle was Obama, who would find a way to make it all work because he was so pragmatic. Maybe Harris is expecting the Obama treatment.
@John Althouse Cohen, I had nearly forgotten that episode, and since Carly was my original first choice I shouldn’t have. Thing is, she did work as a secretary, but only for summer jobs. Her fist employment as as a receptionist, even lower on the corporate totem pole than a secretary. Kessler’s point was that once she completed her MBA her career took off like a Saturn rocket. But what Kessler misses is that an MBA is something that gets one in the door, but is no guarantee of getting into a senior executive office, much less the CEO suite. Her rapid rise is due to genuine talent, not affirmative action and certainly not a husband’s coat tails.
Yes, Fiorina did get forced out at HP, but ignored by most everyone is that her male successor implemented the strategy, plans, and policies that she laid out.
I live in the UK, we have "single payor". There is still private health insurance. You can Google it, BUPA seems to be the most popular. If you don't ration the provision of services based on price you have ration in some other way. Waiting lists, quality, etc.
The wealthy sure aren't going to put up with the quality and timeliness of the NHS. Thus private insurance still exists.
It seems to me that the US had a system where most had insurance for great medical care, those left out had little care (emergency services). Here everyone has ok medical care, but the wealthy elite have really good private services.
It is societal choices.
I left the US during Bush II so can't comment on the state of US medical care following Obamacare.
I think that Joe Biden’s candidacy is fatally flawed. He can’t bridge the huge crack in the party over jobs v climate change. Only somebody who never says anything about either issue and runs on a vague slogan like “Hope” will be able to do that. Joe has come down too hard on the side of the people who abandoned the Democrats for Trump.
I don’t see how, of the major players right now, anybody but Harris has a real shot at the nomination.
Joe Biden is the only one who seems to realize that what we now call “swing states” were referred to as the Blue Wall[TM] just a couple of years ago.
Kalifornia has the highest poverty rate in the nation. So why would you want to vote Dem?
Blogger Michael K said...
have this country’s doctors weighed in on the plan?
5/14/19, 9:10 PM
The older ones are quitting or going to cash practice. Most of the younger are on salary Which is resulting in high levels of burnout. I talk to young docs. Most I talk to are unhappy with their practice. I expect applications to crash in a few years when the student loans are due, and the word gets out.
5/14/19, 9:46 PM
I would expect to see a 'doctor's cooperative': potential patients pay into this cooperative, and in return garner a basic level of discounted services. There may be a tiered service which you pay more, and get more, uh, 'coverage'.
It won't be insurance, because the government will make such things illegal.
The whole 'control' thing started by forcing companies to offer insurance, which, if you wanted to help people, is the exactly wrong thing to do - you trap them in their jobs, without the ability to move on because they would 'loose their insurance'.
I think Kamala Harris is going to become irrelevant if she isn't confronted and forced to improve.
On the other hand, in this crowded field, a major error at this point and you can be O-U-T.
Lots of defense going on.
gadfly said...Concisely, in today's world, all Medicare and Medicaid income results in real losses but private plan's make up the shortfall.
--
More concisely: cost shifting
Isthmus paper/mag/rag years ago had an article lambasting the cost of care to the uninsured in light of Medicare costs. In the course of that, they interviewed a hospital rep who flatly stated they would have to close if all patients' care was reimbursed at Medicare rates...which are higher than Medicaid rates.
Berno et al would likely reimburse providers at Medicaid or less.
How fitting it is to apply a Pinochio scale when involving allowance for private cosmetic procedure insurance.
So a woman who got to her position by assuming the position and never being challenged in a completely one party state doesn’t have debating chops? Inconceivable
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा