Comments on: Obama Equivocates On Health Insurance

By: Adjoran

Adjoran — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:59:36 +0000

on the left and in the mainstream media (but, I repeat myself) if Bush had failed to sign the “bipartisan compromise” bill and allowed Medicare and Medicaid to go unfunded for even a single day!

The man had a Democratic Congress to deal with, and could either sign the best bill he could get out of them or allow these programs to go dry. This was only an option to the Ron Paul crazies.

Why isn’t the bill attributed to those who wrote it and passed it, the Pelosi House and Reid Senate?

By: ohiobeagle

ohiobeagle — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:52:14 +0000

Medicaid is the payer of last resort. Medicare pays secondary when possible. This reporting requirement is supposed to identify dependents who are covered under a private plan so that Medicaid can pay secondary or not at all. Similar concept for Medicare. This is the government being responsible with our tax money.

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:35:52 +0000

Found it!

Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 as it turns out, is the law that caused this reporting requirement.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MandatoryInsRep/Downloads
/CollectionofSSNsHICNsandEINsTINsALERT.pdf

Signed by some guy named “Bush” after a veto of an earlier version.

(Tin foil hat back in the closet…..)

Regards

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:45:01 +0000

or, (donning tin foil hat) ‘O’ wants to go ahead and get all the privately insured folks into the government database.

Time will tell, I’m afraid.

Thanks for your indulgence!

Regards

By: Achance

Achance — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:36:50 +0000

but it would make sense that M/M’s plan administrators would want to coordinate where they could just like a private insurer would.

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:06:34 +0000

Reducing fraud helps keep costs down, as you point out. Always in favor of reducing costs..

I still don’t see what business Medicare has demanding info from private insurance companies and ordering them around.

The SSN request would have made more sense to me if the private insurance company had asked for the info for the reasons you mentioned.
I can support those reasons.

I’m still missing something about the Medicare Center demanding customer SSNs from private insurers.
I hate to be dense, but what am I missing here?

Regards

By: bk

bk — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:54:40 +0000

By: Achance

Achance — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:24:49 +0000

membership cards, etc. That said, having dealt with plan administration a lot because of bargaining H&W with unions, I support positive enrollment including requiring some form of distinctive ID such as the SSN for co-ordination and fraud prevention. When we adopted it for both our active employee and retiree plans we quickly found ourselves insuring some thousands fewer people.

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:57:13 +0000

using the SSN on insurance cards and provide an account number instead a couple of years ago. (Call us hardheaded, its OK.)
In other words when I go to the doctor or hospital, my account doesn’t even have my SSN attached. They currently have no legal reason to need it other than to help their book keeping. If I give it to them it is a private transaction, unlike a bank or W-9 , etc. as you know. I just told them to enter whatever number they use for illegals who come in for services. (All nines at this hospital.)

I have no problem providing documentation of full time student status for grown kids, etc. (They have asked and received same in the past.) The carrier has been fine, not having SSNs for dependents, auditing by other means.

This is not being requested by the insurance company. This is being demanded by Medicare, whom I have no dealings with , whatsoever.

Providing them or anyone else info to go on fishing expeditions runs counter to my core values.
What I want to know is, since congress did not recently pass a bill requiring Medicare to catalog all Americans with private insurance, is this another case of Fearless Leader ordering it without any legal authority?

Regards

By: Achance

Achance — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:38:31 +0000

Positive enrollment for dependents is a good cost containment measure since it allows you to avoid insuring people who aren’t lawfully dependent. Having the SSNs allows cross-checking for co-ordination of benefits and avoiding multiple payments. It is especially an issue in today’s divorce ridden World where a minor child may have insurance eligibility from multiple sources and under different names. Many private insurers also make Medicare/Medicaid the primary insurer if the person is eligible for M/M coverage.

By: snewb098

snewb098 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:30:33 +0000

with the SEIU union to run healthcare it should
be well organized.

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:48:50 +0000

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:48:03 +0000

Actually that is the first true statement I have seen from this Abomination, I mean administration. Since day one he has been saying one thing and doing quite another.

I read “shouldn’t be taken literally”, as “the man is blatant liar and will continue to be so.” In that respect they put an honest caveat in their statement.

Regards

By: olsmithie

olsmithie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:41:50 +0000

Letter from employer

The Center for Medicare Services has a new requirement of all participants on a group health plan. Effective July 1, 2009, it is mandatory that all insurers provide dependent Social Security Numbers (SSNs). Until the new requirement, all dependent information has fallen under the employee’s SSN for claims filing purposes, so it has not been necessary fro our TPA to have all SSNs.

Medicare has already taken charge of private insurance and began to order them around.
Guess they know how the (former) CEO of GM felt.

The Obamantion is already implementing the computer side of his nationalization of health care using the VA system as the excuse. (He announced this personally on a news story.)

What is next? King George, err Obama is obviously not bound by any law or court. The DOJ is headed by ‘O”s personal protector, who has stated he doesn’t recognize certain SC rulings.

Congress, the bunch of wimps they are, appear to be the only recourse. Hoping for congress to save us does not leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Where does it stop?

Regards

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:45:33 +0000

They just hold the check book.

By: bobojake

bobojake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:41:28 +0000

and he destroyed Chevy. I don’t trust obama with my Healthcare one iota. obamas Healthcare will obomb just like his obamanomics did.

By: bobojake

bobojake — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:41:28 +0000

and he destroyed Chevy. I don’t trust obama with my Healthcare one iota. obamas Healthcare will obomb just like his obamanomics did.

By: skey

skey — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:15:26 +0000

and in fairly good condition, for a number of years I kept no health insurance at all. I was making decent wages and had money in the bank to cover routine expenses. I wonder, would the Obama plan have allowed me to keep doing that?

Somehow I doubt it.