.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

columbus represent

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Cuz I'm bored

1) What three cities are on your Top 10 list?
* Jerusalem
* Ronda de la Frontera
* Antigua
2) As a kid, which adult did you most look up to?
* My mom
3) Do you like to talk in foreign accents?
* only when speaking in a foreign language. But then I guess it's not an accent
4) Do you believe in coincidence?
* mmmm, sure, but only in the sense that fate and coincidence are the same
5) Lately you have been…
* bumming
6) Is chocolate addictive?
* no, just yummy
7) Today has been brought to you by...what?
* espresso, like every day
8) What was your favorite food as a kid?
* mac and cheese and keilbasa
9) Do you ever have the desire to do something completely out of character?
* i dont know if I have character
10) When was the last time you made someone smile?
* this morning
11) What did you do?
* kissed my sweetie
12) What have you been doing for yourself lately?
* writing in this blog and making movies
13) If you could invent one thing, what would it be?
* a coma button
14) If you could travel through time, where and when would you go?
* too long of a question, too long of an answer

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

This just makes me happy. This is an open letter to the Kansas School board regarding teaching creationism in science classrooms. Brilliant!

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

I need a healer

"The Doctor's Dilemma
Returning Service, Grace, and Meaning to the Art of Healing"

This is a cool article that someone sent me. Apparantly this woman initially had crohn's (hence the friend sending me the article) but what speaks to me is the need for healers in our society. She teaches a course for first year med students entitled "The Healer's Art" which sounds wonderfully interesting.

I've been around a lot of doctors in the past few years of my life. I almost always leave their presence on the verge of tears. They are the ones who you go to at your weakest and most vulnerable, yet they only have a couple of minutes with you no matter what, even if they want more time, even if you have spent the past 3 hours in their office. It's mandated by our current system. I longed to be looked at as a whole person, not as a back or a colon or a heart. I have sooo many doctors and doctors appointments and yet I never feel like I've completly been looked at, or listened to.

I was so tired of being treated as an illness or a body part, so I thought I would get myself a referal to a pain management clinic. I have 3 pretty chronic pains that have different etiologies. I have doctors for each ailment, but i have pain from all of them. So i thought it would be a good idea to deal with pain as a thing itself and learn how to deal with it in general (besides taking medicine), so that no matter what the cause, i have a coping technique.

So they poked and prodded and had me fill out about 20 pages of questionaires on "the ONE main complaint that brings you here today" The biggest is my back, so that's what i filled out the paperwork on. When I acutally got to talk to a real person, they said: well, let's just look at your back and we can troubleshoot the other stuff later. I told them that my back is precisely as bad as it is because the incident that caused the pain happened in a series of events, of which the back was the least acute. At the time I was saying "but my lower back is KILLING ME" and the doctors were like "no, I'm not even going to look at that until we deal with this broken ankle" etc. so here i am 7 years later, still dealing with my lower back. Noone had wanted to deal with it before. Now that's all they want to hear about. I kept saying "look, I just want ways from you of dealing with pain, I have a back doctor, I have a GI, I don't need a new diagnosis and treatment plan, I came here today for a pain mangement plan, give me breathing techniques, SOMETHING" So what was the suggestion? surgery on my discs that may or may not relieve ONE of the pains, and which carries risk of infection, spine damage, and all that good stuff with it. I threw up my hands and left.

Monday, August 15, 2005

a so-called "brilliant idea"

Rush Limbaugh: the most unpatriotic SOB. Don't believe me? Take a listen to his "fabulous" thoughts on what should happen to Americans who disagree with him

Thursday, August 11, 2005

please spare me, please

I'm mad folks. steaming. heated even. what's got me all up in arms? (not that it is particularly hard to get me going) It's those darn burger king comercials for chicken fries. ugggghhhhh!!!! Ok, let me elaborate. First: the idea of the product is so unbelievably disgusting. French fries made of chicken. GROSS! the batter looks gross, the container looks gross, and the thought of them makes me want to puke. Second: the ad campaign "one nation under chicken fries" with all these head banging, hard core sweaty youth, eating pulverized "meat" in some dark dungeony music/sports venue. what the hell? why? who would find any of that even remotely appealing? i see the ads and my blood beings to boil. I'm mad at the world over this product and its marketing campaign. I watch too much tv....

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Only Crazy Horse Need Apply

Cracks Found in Medicaid Verification

By KEVIN FREKING
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -
A majority of states don't verify claims of U.S. citizenship by those seeking Medicaid, which creates the potential for illegal immigrants to access the health care program, an inspector general's report has found.

"The quality assurance checks aren't there. That's how we see it," said Jodi Nudelman, an acting regional inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services. "And it's our sense the people may not be aware of that."

Federal law says that, with a few exceptions, a person must be a citizen to receive Medicaid benefits. States can accept a signed declaration as proof of U.S. citizenship. Forty-six states do.

Only Montana, New York, New Hampshire and Texas require applicants to submit documents verifying citizenship.

Of the states that allow self-declaration of citizenship before accessing Medicaid, 27 did not conduct subsequent auditing that would verify an applicant's statements were true.

One reason the federal government allows for self-declaration of citizenship with Medicaid is that it speeds access to health care.

The inspector general's report does not address to what extent there is a problem with illegal immigrants accessing Medicaid, only that the potential exists. Only one state, Oregon, has conducted an audit to determine how often "noncitizens" gained access to Medicaid.

Oregon's secretary of state reviewed a sample of 812 applications in 2002 and found that 25 were not citizens. The state estimated that it would cost an additional $2 million if 1 percent of the Medicaid rolls are not citizens.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services responded that it agreed that states should have systems in place to ensure the citizenship of applicants. However, it also noted that the IG's report raises only a potential problem.

"The report does not find particular problems regarding false allegations of citizenship, nor are we aware of any," CMS officials replied.

In some cases, newly arrived legal immigrants, as well as illegal immigrants, can lawfully access Medicaid, but such coverage is greatly limited to emergency care.

-----

According to the Ohio Administrative Code: 5101:1-38-02 Section A, 3d: Self-declaration of citizenship is acceptable verification unless the information is confusing or contradictory to other information available to the administrative agency. Citizenship must be verified if the individual states that he or she is an alien or the administrative agency has reason to believe that the individual was born outside of the United States or territories.

So that means that Ohio is one of those pesky states that doesn't do the "quality assurance checks" mentioned above to make sure that those darn immigrants aren't coming here to scam the system. so. Let me ask you: how do you decide whether you are going to question a person's citizenship status or not? I guess you could take on the onerous work of verifying every applicant's citizenship status, but how realistic is that in an already heavily overburdened highly bureaucratic system that the whole country is saying is eating up too much money as is? So going on a case by case basis might make more sense. Or would it?

In Ohio, in order to apply for and receive Medicaid, no face to face or phone interview is required. You fill out your application and mail it in. According to the OAC, the only time a caseworker should NOT accept self declaration of immigration status, is if they have contradictory evidence, or reason to believe that the applicant is lying. So what would that reason to believe look like? I mean, you have no contact with the client outside of the mailed in application. How do you decide that something is fishy? Well, we have some case workers here in Franklin County who have taken it upon themselves to define "reason to believe" as: having a foreign sounding last name. That's right. If you mail in an application for Medicaid, and you get this case worker (or her manager), and you have a "foreign sounding" last name your citizenship status will be questioned, and verification will be required. Anyone who has ever applied for benefits through the government knows that it takes forever and a day to get approval, and any extra verification requirements only adds to that approval time, and the wait for you to get health care.

So going back to the last name thing. What does foreign mean? Like: anyone who isn't named Little Bear, or Yellowknife or something? I mean come on!!! Who among us, save our Native brothers and sisters, doesn't have a last name that is foreign in origin? Of course, someone named Jones, or McCain, or Edwards would never be questioned. But people with those names are just as likely to be non-citizens as I am. The advocate (who is a U.S. citizen of Irish heritage: blonde hair, blue eyes, pure Ohioan), married a Latino man, and shares his last name. When speaking a caseworker over the phone the advocate asked her if SHE applied for Medicaid, would they make her prove she was a citizen, because of her last name? The caseworker told her yes, she would. In other words: if they have reason to believe that you have Latino, or African, or Asian ancestry, then you are suspect, and you will have to wait even longer to get the healthcare that you are eligible for. In other words: their bias = your loss.

Of course this doesn't even begin to address that fact that immigrant women who are pregnant and who will give birth to U.S. citizens are NOT entitled to prenatal care through Medicaid. That's really smart! That baby's (often expensive) health problems that may result from not receiving care in the womb WILL be paid for through Medicaid (your tax dollars and mine), but any kind of prevention against those health problems aren't. That's fiscally reeeealllly smart, no? Why aren't pro-lifers up in arms about the fact that we don't have universal prenatal care, or universal health care for all kids? But that's a rant for another day.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Medical Malpractice Crisis My Ass

Missouri: Medical malpractice insurers in Missouri and Illinois raised premiums last year even though they paid out "substantially less in claims on behalf of their physician customers," according to a new report by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The report found that Missouri's malpractice insurers' loss ratio -- the ratio between the amount companies project they will pay out and the amount in premiums they collect -- decreased by nearly 35% last year. In Illinois, the companies' loss ratio decreased more than 14%, according to the report. The report also found that malpractice insurers in Illinois took in 13% more in premiums last year, while direct losses increased only 3%. At the same time, Missouri companies' premiums increased 8.4% while direct losses dropped 26%. Critics of the insurers said the study shows the companies are "gouging doctors," the Post-Dispatch reports. However, industry officials said the report does not include important costs, such as estimated future expenses and hospitals that self-insure (Sorkin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7/24).
****From Kaiser Daily Health Policy Reports

OK. This shit pisses me off to no end. One of the big ways that Republicans want to "reform" the health care system, and reign in costs, is to limit patient's abilities to recieve damages for medical malpractice. Some answer! Limit a patient's rights, while doing nothing to solve the out of control malpractice insurance Co.s They continue to screw over doctors, driving them to the point of leaving the profession, and who gets the blame? The patients! Even as payouts on behalf of the insurance Co.s go down, they continue to charge doctors more.

WHY IS NOONE GOING AFTER THE INSURERS? I'll tell you why: because patients are a hell of alot easier to target. Last year, the Ohio legislature passed Senate Bill 86, a bill that would make it illegal for an uninsured patient, with income below 200% of the federal "poverty level" to sue for malpractice if they are recieving free care. Can you say Tuskeegee? Of course, if you make more money, and are uninsured and getting free care, its still your right to sue if there is gross negligence etc. But if you're poor, you don't have that right.

This bill was an extension of the "good samaritan" law that says that you can't sue a health care professional giving you road side assistance. And that law makes perfect sense. If you are giving road side assistance, you're on the freaking road side, and you dont have access to what you would usually have to treat someone, the situation is very difficult etc. But with SB 86, we say that even if you are treating a patient in your own office (we're not talking free clinics here, we are talking docs seeing patients in their office, with all of their regular attendants/equip etc) you aren't liable for what kind of treatment you give that patient. SB 86 feeds off the fears of some doctors of "poor people" who are just out to make a buck scaming you. When I talked with my doctor about it, and told him that I was against SB 86 he looked horrified. I said "look, you have to admit that you are 10 x more likely to be sued by your lawyer patient, than you are from your uninsured patients who you are truly helping out, who don't have resources to hire a lawyer anyways, and who have less knowledge of their rights as a patient." He laughed, then agreed with me.

We fought this bill as hard as we could: showed evidence that poor people are less likely to sue (even when they should), and we even got quotes from insurers saying that this bill would do NOTHING to bring down the cost of malpractice insurance. It was simply a bill to make docs less scared. My solution would be to educate the docs on the reality of the situation, instead of taking away people's rights to assuage their unfounded fears. This is sooooo Bushy. Don't do anything to address the actual problem, just do whatever necessary to make sure that your cronies keep on making money hand over fist, at the expense of the rest of us.

 
eXTReMe Tracker