[jonKranked]

he didn't reveal sensitive/hipaa/pii; so stop it

see below:

Some workers at other companies considered the likelihood that their bosses knew intimate details about their own families’ personal illnesses and treatments — and worried about the potential for those companies to disclose enough details about their health conditions to make them identifiable to colleagues. It was not long before a “distressed babies” meme emerged across social media.

it is still possible he was in violation of hipaa.

 

[syadasti]

- the real villain is the industry, that's grossly padded for profit (or at least in an effort to offset write-offs from a group that shall go unnamed)

The cost of health insurance was rapidly growing before healthcare reform. I've managed a plan at small business for years so I've see our company policy rapidly increase year after year and we've had to change deductibles and more recently switch to cheaper providers. The pre-reform cost growth was not sustainable or affordable either. Doing nothing was not a viable option.

 

[Jim Mac]

This brings up another interesting point- "wellness plans" at work....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/your-money/study-raises-questions-for-employer-wellness-programs.html

Study says that $ is better invested by targeted disease management for employees rather than than the old "rah rah sis boom bah- let's lose some weight and our insurance rate's will be great" stuff that typical wellness plans are made of...


...however, how does that cross into the hipaa/armstrong 7th ring of hell stuff?

 

[Pesqueeb]

That CEO is an unabashed asshole.

Here's the parent of one of the distressed babies in question responding to him:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/tim_armstrong_blames_distressed_babies_for_aol_benefit_cuts_he_s_talking.html

armstrong gets his own circle of hell.

In other words, we experienced exactly the kind of unforeseeable, unpreventable medical crisis that any health plan is supposed to cover. Isn’t that the whole point of health insurance?

And in my own experience, it's exactly the kind of crisis that leads your employer to throw you directly under the bus. I can name at least one executive at this countries largest regional airline that I'd like to see cooking over the spit in hell with Mr. Armstrong. Fvck his excuses, fvck his corporate douchebaggery, fvck his plutocratic attitude, fvck AOL, and fvck him.

 

[Pesqueeb]

...however, how does that cross into the hipaa/armstrong 7th ring of hell stuff?

Because, AOL was fvcking people over on retirement because babies are expensive and stuff.

 

[Jim Mac]

:And in my own experience, it's exactly the kind of crisis that leads your employer to throw you directly under the bus. I can name at least one executive at this countries largest regional airline that I'd like to see cooking over the spit in hell with Mr. Armstrong. Fvck his excuses, fvck his corporate douchebaggery, fvck his plutocratic attitude, fvck AOL, and fvck him.

Soooo, what exactly are you trying to say? Don't be shy, now!

 

[jonKranked]

...however, how does that cross into the hipaa/armstrong 7th ring of hell stuff?

when disclosed to coworkers, some of whom may have been aware / partially aware of said person's medical condition, it can be easy to play connect the dots.

just because it is not an explicit direct disclosure of personal information that can identify a person, when disclosed to the correct audience it can constitute a hipaa violation.

 

[Toshi]

Plus, hearing whining from an executive who is paid $12M a year (iirc) about their insurance company--not them--paying perhaps $1M out from premiums paid in to keep unexpectedly premature babies alive is especially galling.

 

[$tinkle]

galling.

a medical pun! i love it!

 

[Dogboy]

Plus, hearing whining from an executive who is paid $12M a year (iirc) about their insurance company--not them--paying perhaps $1M out from premiums paid in to keep unexpectedly premature babies alive is especially galling.

$12M is the number stated in the report I listened to. Also, the expenditure for the 2 babies was called into question. It sounds like the "million dollars each" figure was pretty far out of line with typical, additional costs associated with premature babies.

 

[Jim Mac]

$12M is the number stated in the report I listened to. Also, the expenditure for the 2 babies was called into question. It sounds like the "million dollars each" figure was pretty far out of line with typical, additional costs associated with premature babies.

...and let's not forget the "inflation" that happens in hospitals, aka the $5.00 advil tablet.

 

[Toshi]

$12M is the number stated in the report I listened to. Also, the expenditure for the 2 babies was called into question. It sounds like the "million dollars each" figure was pretty far out of line with typical, additional costs associated with premature babies.

I've personally known people (outside my role within the hospital) who have racked up $1M+ in lifetime medical costs. Prior to the PPACA they could be dropped at that point, or their reimbursement capped. Unexpected cancer or polytrauma in a car wreck can add up awfully quick.

(Expected cancer is cheap, on the other hand.)

 

[Pesqueeb]

I've personally known people (outside my role within the hospital) who have racked up $1M+ in lifetime medical costs. Prior to the PPACA they could be dropped at that point, or their reimbursement capped. Unexpected cancer or polytrauma in a car wreck can add up awfully quick.

(Expected cancer is cheap, on the other hand.)

>$750,000 dollars the day I checked out, does not include the next 6 months of PT, follow up's, ETC. I was 27, and have a long family history of cancer. ACA has saved my ass.

 

[Pesqueeb]

And there was much wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

 

[$tinkle]

gnashing of teeth? i don't believe obamacare covers dental

Health insurance premiums up 39% to 56% under Obamacare, reach $2,604 a month in California

and i just went to ehealthinsurance.com & for a family of 4, bronze plans avg in the mid $700s/month
fcuk that, i'll keep my equiv silver plan & pay less than this doodoo bronze

 

[jimmydean]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/18/emilie-lamb-obamacare_n_4981520.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

While consumers like Lamb are opposed to the changes forced by the law, larger societal and economic factors are at work. If patients are free to choose health policies that won't cover major medical expenses, that affects everyone else. Doctors and hospitals won't get paid, and those costs get spread throughout the health care system -- and passed on to taxpayers, who pick up a share of the cost of unpaid hospital bills every year through funding streams built into Medicare and Medicaid.

It's stories like this that crack me up. "My old plan was only $52 a month and covered almost nothing. Now I have a premium medical plan that covers everything and I had to take a second job to pay for it. I thought I could keep my plan that covered nothing, thanks Obama."

 

[jonKranked]

gnashing of teeth? i don't believe obamacare covers dental

that's because a perfect smile is part of the gay agenda

 

[jimmydean]

that's because a perfect smile is part of the gay agenda

I thought it was perfect abs?

 

[jonKranked]

Health insurance premiums up 39% to 56% under Obamacare, reach $2,604 a month in California

now, how much of those increases...

...are attributed to normal increases in premiums?

...are to meet shareholder profit expectations now that insurance companies are forced to spend 80% of the money they take in on actually providing medical care?


...are in response to improving their policies to meet federal requirements?

 

[jonKranked]

I thought it was perfect abs?

i said part. the whole agenda has yet to be revealed.

 

[$tinkle]

that's because a perfect smile is part of the gay agenda

gotta give it to 'em: they have the nicest teeth anyone's ever come across

 

[jonKranked]

gotta give it to 'em: they have the nicest teeth anyone's ever come across

and a full set no less

 

[jimmydean]

i said part. the whole agenda has yet to be revealed.

True, true. My ladyfriend cleans her hairdressers teeth, he has a nice looking grill.

 

[syadasti]

http://qz.com/189103/nine-charts-that-tell-you-where-life-is-pretty-terrific-and-where-people-are-miserable/

 

[jimmydean]

http://qz.com/189103/nine-charts-that-tell-you-where-life-is-pretty-terrific-and-where-people-are-miserable/

I bet folks in the south who walk home armed feel pretty damn safe, just sayin.

 

[$tinkle]

oh, he is good

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201076-obama-makes-o-care-pitch-to-hispanics-the

 

[Pesqueeb]

and a full set no less

That's how you can tell them apart form the republican base. That, and all the non camouflage clothing.

 

[kidwoo]

oh, he is good

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/201076-obama-makes-o-care-pitch-to-hispanics-the

If that's not something you can hang on a t-shirt in support of your system, I don't know what is.

 

[jonKranked]

That's how you can tell them apart form the republican base. That, and all the non camouflage clothing.

that, and correct sentence structure.

 

[Pesqueeb]

that, and correct sentence structure.

Sentence structure is for fags.

 

[jonKranked]

Sentence structure is for fags.

i've got your chart right here....

 

[$tinkle]

from that right wing mouthpiece, usatoday (obviously so named b/c they're anti-kenyan)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/18/fact-check-obama-insurance-stats/6575537/

 

[Pesqueeb]

from that right wing mouthpiece, usatoday (obviously so named b/c they're anti-kenyan)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/18/fact-check-obama-insurance-stats/6575537/

Death Panels don't pay for themselves you know.

there's no evidence that the ACA has caused premiums for large employer plans to skyrocket. And it's true that the Affordable Care Act mainly affects the individual market, and, to a lesser extent, the small-group market. Large employers don't face major, radical changes.
.....
Several of the requirements for employer insurance were implemented early on. Many experts estimated that from 2010 to 2011, employer premiums went up 1% to 3%, on average, as plans had to allow adult children to stay on parents' policies until age 26, cover preventive care without cost sharing, increase annual coverage limits and cover children regardless of preexisting conditions.

The average family employer-sponsored premium jumped up by 9% that year, leading Republicans to claim that the ACA had caused the increase. But independent experts told us that the bulk of the change was due to rising medical costs, as usual. Drew Altman, CEO and president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote at the time: "The two biggest changes this year allow young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance policies and require some insurance plans to cover preventive services at no cost to patients. These are popular provisions that provide real benefits, and combined they account for about one to two percentage points of this year's premium increase."

The Horror!

 

[$tinkle]

Death Panels don't pay for themselves you know.

you got that right:

Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some the nation's best cancer hospitals are off-limits.

it's just cancer; suck it up, pussies

 

[Pesqueeb]

you got that right:

Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some the nation's best cancer hospitals are off-limits.

it's just cancer; suck it up, pussies

Before President Barack Obama's health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable. Now, insurers can't turn away people with health problems or charge them more. Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trapdoor for cancer patients, are also banned. "Patients may have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals in some exchange plans than others ... but the rules for such plans go a long way toward remedying the most severe problems that existed for decades," said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Right, so no coverage at all is better than not getting a free ride at John Hopkins? I'd be willing to bet that a lot of those same hospitals won't take my employer provided health insurance either.

edit: In fact, I know my employer provided health care doesn't do this:

Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications.

edit 2:

The Obama administration says it has notified insurers that their networks will get closer scrutiny for next year in the 36 states served by the federal exchange. Cancer care will be a priority, it says.

 

[$tinkle]

Right, so no coverage at all is better than not getting a free ride at John Hopkins? I'd be willing to bet that a lot of those same hospitals won't take my employer provided health insurance either.

i do not follow. who is promoting no coverage as an option?
it seems to me this equates to it, however:

"This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans,"

but as far as your johns hopkins remark goes:

Of the 19 that responded, four reported access through all insurers: the Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore; Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia; Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, N.C.; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn. One caveat: Some insurers did not include these cancer centers on certain low-cost plans.

i expect this will be interpreted as bait-n-switch, and not just by his foes, but those who want meaningful coverage. you know: his fanbase

i would have to expect that no matter how ACA is implemented (or even if the GOP wet-dream of repeal/replace were implemented), cancer treatment will break you like ivan drago, making the alternative only slightly less appealing

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said patients can have access to Huntsman for complex procedures, on a case-by-case basis.

how will they conduct these evaluations? must...not...use..."that term".....

 

[jimmydean]

i do not follow. who is promoting no coverage as an option?

Before ACA, if you have cancer under one plan and god forbid have to switch plans (due to a job change, etc), that "option" is made for you because you are now uninsurable because your condition was preexisting.

How does this not make sense to you?

 

[Pesqueeb]

i do not follow. who is promoting no coverage as an option?

For profit insurance companies? As stated earlier :

a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable.

I would make the argument that being able to go to any place for cancer treatment, is better than not being able to go at all. The fact that you might not get an e-ticket straight to whatever #1, experimental treatment you might desire is just right-wing, make-hay, nontroversy.

but those who want meaningful coverage. you know: his fanbase

Know who wants "meaningful coverage"? I do. But I can't get it as long as it continues to effect some CEO's bottom line. Because "free market".

 

[Pesqueeb]

Before ACA, if you have cancer under one plan and god forbid have to switch plans (due to a job change, etc), that "option" is made for you because you are now uninsurable because your condition was preexisting.

How does this not make sense to you?

Or if you just got dropped because you broke your arm when you were 6 and didn't put in on the paperwork when you were filling it out.

 

[$tinkle]

i'm just pleased that for however messy this now, at least the health ins companies' lobbyists have been kept from authoring-by-proxy legislation