There are people who are definitely going to go out and vote for Harris. There are people who are definitely going to go out and vote for Trump.
The debate isn't for these people. It's for the people who are shockingly on the fence about who to vote for, and those who may not vote at all.
The more you get trump on screen being easily manipulated by Harris, the more you make him look weak which will make some of his less ardent supporters less likely to vote, while also convincing others then Harris is the more sane choice.
No one in the military
Okay, but is the person still an officer? I mean, it is in the name. The way I see it, as a layman, it is kind of hard to ding the author for getting this wrong when they are technically correct and a laymen would consider them an officer, and the only real complaint is that colloquially military members don't refer to them as officers.
What am I missing or wrong about?
When I was leaving college a quarter of a century ago I briefly considered going into game dev...even back then everyone said it was low paid and gruelling work, so I passed.
It's shocking that people still go into it.
Except if you read the article, that's not at all what is happening here. The title is just click bait garbage, just like trump is dishonesty garbage too.
You're gonna need a lot of pets to feed a whole bus load of immigrants!
Yeah but the title makes it sound like it was a threat, rather than just a statement that she is going to lose money as a result of her statement.
Trump is garbage, but the title is garbage too.
Your initial framing and argument made it seem otherwise.
Understandable because I said she works for an insurance company. But it was not my intent. No need to apologize for this.
It is natural to assume that you did not believe the same standard applied to reviewing doctors at Medicare since you’ve been arguing the same.
I disagree that it's natural. I said doctors, not just doctors providing care (which my wife is still one of, btw). I suspect that this is an issue of viewing it as too black and white ... so because I said one "side" is not perfect...well I must then think the other "side" is perfect.
I see no evidence that these denials are saving more money than is being wasted fighting them.
This is a different question than the one I'm trying to answer. I haven't seen the books or analysis, so I don't know whether it is more efficient. However, just peripherally, even i can see how much waste there is an even as a laymen it's easy for me to understand that so many of the things she sees are just blatantly not medically necessary.
Doctors are notoriously bad at documentation.
Times they are a changing. Them not justifying why they are doing something is no longer adequate, and wont be adequate even if (maybe even especially if) we move to universal health care.
Medicare or Medicare Advantage?
It's Medicare. She has a friend who works on the private insurance side of the company and she always makes fun of him for it.
If it is a covered item or procedure, the claim is not fraudulent, and the insurance provider has not met the patient to perform any exam, then going off of notes and comparing with best practices is insufficient to deny a claim.
The metric is based on medical necessity, and it's standard for Medicare to deny claims for things that are not medically necessary. Again, if the doctor thinks it is medically necessary, they can appeal the decision and make their case, and that happens frequently.
This may surprise you, but the doctors hired by insurance are not magically better than the ones treating the patient.
I've already stated that I know doctors are not perfect and omniscient, so I'm not sure why you would imply I think otherwise. Although, this isn't the first time you've implied I think the opposite of what I've explicitly stated. Is this going to be a trend?
Medicare is the most efficient health insurance system in America.
Are you under the impression that medicare does not do chart review nor deny claims? I assure you this is incorrect because, the irony being, my wife works on the medicare side of chart review.
As I've been saying, this doesn't go away, nor should it, if we move to universal health care. Something I strongly support, btw, I dislike insurance companies as much as you do. The difference between you and me is that I recognize that doctors are not infallible and omniscient and can make mistakes.
If private insurance is so great, why are they more inefficient with worse outcomes?
I started off very clearly and explicitly saying Im a strong supporter of universal healthcare. Why do you think you came to the conclusion that I think private insurance is so great?
she has no basis
You're just wrong. I assume it because you have no medical experience and don't have any knowledge of how any of this works, but doctors are supposed to take good notes throughout their care that go into charts. This is done so any doctor, especially if we are talking about in a hospital, can step in and read what has been done, why it was done, so they know what they should do next. There are also standards of care for certain conditions that have been established and reviewed by many other doctors.
So she can absolutely read these charts and the standards of care and have a very good basis for what is and what is not necessary. Is it 100%? Of course not, which is why doctors and patients can appeal. But if they can't justify why it is medically necessary, which was certainly the case here and it was clearly just a case of quality of life, then it makes sense not to waste resources...this would be true with or without private medical insurance.
I'm racking my brain trying to come up with what life situation would possibly lead someone to a position so profoundly detached from reality.