Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   House ends their evening with no deal finalized on health care. Demands to be let in on the wheelbarrow of money counting being done in the Senate   (cnn.com) divider line 115
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

279 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jul 2009 at 9:34 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-29 02:16:31 PM  
Obdicut: Can you provide a citation for your claim that the government doesn't do small claims? I can't find it in the Federal Tort Claims Act.

As far as Medicare?

Appeal #5: If the MAC turns down your appeal, you have 60 days to determine if you wish to hire an attorney and file a judicial review in Federal District Court. The amount in dispute must be greater than $1,180 ($2,000 for a hospital inpatient claim) to qualify. (This amount may change each year.) For more information, contact the Department of Health and Human Services at 877-696-6775 or www.hhs.gov/omha.

More importantly, you confusing my message: the remedies available to a citizen for poor claims handling/negligence are FAR fewer, and much more difficult to obtain. I've never said you can't sue.

The process involved is more difficult, to an almost heroic proportion. By design. I'd rather avoid having to deal with that if someone farks up a decision regarding my health insurance.
 
2009-07-29 02:26:27 PM  
3_Butt_Cheeks: or resorting to middle school insults.

HAHA! says the guy named 3_Butt_Cheeks
 
2009-07-29 02:31:15 PM  
Shryke: More importantly, you confusing my message: the remedies available to a citizen for poor claims handling/negligence are FAR fewer, and much more difficult to obtain. I've never said you can't sue.

Ah, you see, you said that the government doesn't do small claims-- you didn't make it clear you were talking about medicare. Funny, that.

I also find it funny that you cited the fifth appeal level as a sign of how difficult it is to appeal to the government. Is there any reason you left out, say, appeal level #2?

If your second appeal is denied as well and the amount in dispute is at least $120 ($200 for a hospital inpatient claim), then you have 60 days to file a third appeal, this time with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Filing instructions are included with the denial.

ALJ appeals are presented to the judge via telephone (or videoconference if you have the necessary technology). At the beginning of the hearing, confirm that the judge has a copy of any letters of support written by your doctors. Then explain your situation and why you require the care in dispute.


Is there any similar level of appeal to a private corporation?
 
2009-07-29 03:10:45 PM  
Obdicut: I also find it funny that you cited the fifth appeal level as a sign of how difficult it is to appeal to the government. Is there any reason you left out, say, appeal level #2?

No, in fact, the appeals process, the lengthy appeals process, is what I am talking about. You must jump through all of those hopes BEFORE you can attempt to litigate.

Furthermore, I cited MEDICARE because YOU brought them up as your example to cuonter my claims. Additionally, the reason why small claims don't happen in Federal Court is this: it makes no financial sense to easte months of time and effort to pursue less than thousands of dollars. You can't simply file suit as you can in civil settings (or perhaps deal with a single arbitrator).

Perhaps more importantly, a large impetus behind small claims, at least in the insurance industry, is the Bad Faith aspect. Any claim can trigger it, and when it's triggered, it is a GOLD MINE for the attorney. Simple clerical errors can trigger it. This honey pot doesn't exist in a Federal scenario. Let me qualify that: it certainly didn't in the past, and I've never once come across in recently.

Last: all insurance policies come with out of court remedies, usually by state law. Abritration, etc. Nice thing is, the process is hardly as lengthy as the Federal level, and then, if you are still not satisfied, you can sue your heart out.
 
2009-07-29 03:18:51 PM  
Shryke: No, in fact, the appeals process, the lengthy appeals process, is what I am talking about. You must jump through all of those hopes BEFORE you can attempt to litigate.

Right. And at any one of those 'hoops', your case can be settled in your favor. Why do you view that as a bad thing? Why do you view it as fundamentally different from the arbitration steps that are often contractually mandated in private insurance contracts?

Shryke: Furthermore, I cited MEDICARE because YOU brought them up as your example to cuonter my claims. Additionally, the reason why small claims don't happen in Federal Court is this: it makes no financial sense to easte months of time and effort to pursue less than thousands of dollars. You can't simply file suit as you can in civil settings (or perhaps deal with a single arbitrator).

Okay. So first you said the government didn't do it, and now you're saying that it just doesn't make financial sense to. Which is your statement?

Shryke: Last: all insurance policies come with out of court remedies, usually by state law. Abritration, etc. Nice thing is, the process is hardly as lengthy as the Federal level, and then, if you are still not satisfied, you can sue your heart out.

So the difference, again, is..?

Remember that you started this by claiming the government's use of sovereign immunity would cause problems for government-run health insurance. You have yet to provide any case of sovereign immunity being cited in a care-based case for medicaid or medicare.

You might want to do that.
 
2009-07-29 04:00:02 PM  
Corvus: I love it
yesterday's thread: THE ARE GOING TOO FAST!!!! their plans suck, why are they trying to pass this crap?
today's thread: THE ARE GOING TOO SLOW!!!! their plans still suck, why aren't they coming up with something better?


FTFY
 
2009-07-29 04:09:26 PM  
Obdicut: Remember that you started this by claiming the government's use of sovereign immunity would cause problems for government-run health insurance. You have yet to provide any case of sovereign immunity being cited in a care-based case for medicaid or medicare.

Enough. You are tedious.

IS it more difficult to sue the government, yes or no? Can you sue for piddling amounts, yes or no? Can you sue for bad faith, yes or no?

Is, in the end, dealing with a farkup on a federal level the same as private?

The answer is no, not even close. You know this, you are, as usual lawyering meaningless points to death for some unknown reason. Same shiat as usual from you, Obdicut. You're in the wrong line of work.
 
2009-07-29 04:10:54 PM  
amazing_live_seamonkeys: Shryke: mrshowrules: A utopian ambition is when the richest country in the world wants to have health coverage for all their children?

SCHIP, you dumbass. It passed. So your busted ass "FOR THE CHILDRENZ" flailings are moot.

Yep. Dont know why we cant just have a system to help the indigent and children without an across the board government takeover right now hurry hurry hurry. I feel like the President is a used car salesman warning me I need to buy his piece of shiat car or someone else will buy it and I'll never have another chance.


The last one took us to war, killed thousands and bailed out Wall Street billionaires using the very same technique even though no one thought he was anything but an idiot. Maybe someday we will learn.
 
2009-07-29 04:43:19 PM  
Shryke: IS it more difficult to sue the government, yes or no? Can you sue for piddling amounts, yes or no? Can you sue for bad faith, yes or no?

It's more difficult to sue them in terms of steps and paperwork. It is far, far easier to sue them in terms of the amount of money they have to spend on lawyers and other economic realities of the case. It is not necessarily more difficult to get a decision in your favor before it comes to trial, either, and may be easier than for many private insurers.

I think that yes, can sue for piddling amounts, as far as I know, since the section you cited was only about medicare-- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. And yes, you can sue for bad faith in a contract, as well, if that's what you mean, through the Tucker Act-- however, I'm unclear on what you mean by 'bad faith'.

It's obviously not the same dealing with the feds, since, on one level, they are both the entity you're suing and who makes the decisions regarding your fate. However, the role of the judiciary in doing so is one that our country is based on. The legislative and the judicial branches are separate for situations like this one.

Shryke: The answer is no, not even close. You know this, you are, as usual lawyering meaningless points to death for some unknown reason. Same shiat as usual from you, Obdicut. You're in the wrong line of work.

Comments on my posting style rather than the substance of my posts don't really excite me very much, sorry.

The point I am making is that you held up sovereign immunity as a serious barrier to suing the government in care-related matters, and a reason to fear single-payer. You have done absolutely nothing to support this argument. You have not responded to one huge way that it is definitely easier to sue the government-- they don't have the same resources to apply to the case as the private company does.
 
2009-07-29 04:51:24 PM  
Obdicut: You have not responded to one huge way that it is definitely easier to sue the government-- they don't have the same resources to apply to the case as the private company does.

It's a pointless assertion. Additionally, it's probably faulty: government legal resources are notoriously UNDER staffed. Not so for insurance companies.

You have done absolutely nothing to support this argument.

It's obvious.

And yes, you can sue for bad faith in a contract, as well, if that's what you mean, through the Tucker Act

No.

"Explicitly excluded are suits in which a claim is based on a tort by the government"

Once again, more evidence the government's vulnerability to tort is *extremely* limited.
 
2009-07-29 04:59:52 PM  
Shryke: It's a pointless assertion. Additionally, it's probably faulty: government legal resources are notoriously UNDER staffed. Not so for insurance companies.

That was exactly my point. That is a way that it is easier to sue the government than it is to sue a private company. One that you have not included in your calculus of who's 'easier' to sue.

Shryke: It's obvious.

That is a very compelling argument and I'm sure everyone will be convinced by it.

Shryke: "Explicitly excluded are suits in which a claim is based on a tort by the government"

Once again, more evidence the government's vulnerability to tort is *extremely* limited.


Um, it's excluded because government liability to torts is covered under the tort act-- which you already cited. Are you being disingenuous, or were you ignorant of that? Or am I not understanding what you mean by 'bad faith'?
 
2009-07-29 05:17:04 PM  
Obdicut: That is a way that it is easier to sue the government than it is to sue a private company

Unless, of course, the legal system surrounding such suits accomidates the government for this. Which it does.

Um, it's excluded because government liability to torts is covered under the tort act-- which you already cited. Are you being disingenuous, or were you ignorant of that? Or am I not understanding what you mean by 'bad faith'?

Did you not say, verbatim, that you can sur for contractual violations (bad faith) through the Tucker Act? You cannot, in this respect.
 
2009-07-29 05:30:32 PM  
Shryke: Unless, of course, the legal system surrounding such suits accomidates the government for this. Which it does.

So in other words, attempting to focus on one aspect of how 'easy' it is to sue-- whether it's how many resources the entity has, or how many administrative steps are necessary-- does not give a complete picture of how easy or difficult it is to sue them.

As I said: There are some ways it's easier to sue the government. There are some ways that it's easier to sue a private company. There are privileges the government has that the private company can't match; there are resources the private entities has that the government can't match.

Moreover, the concern should be on who gets their cases settled, not the ease of suing. You haven't done anything, also, to show that the mediation steps that come before suing are not actually effective in resolving complaints and claims.

Shryke: Did you not say, verbatim, that you can sur for contractual violations (bad faith) through the Tucker Act? You cannot, in this respect.

Um, you can sue for contractual violations through the Tucker Act. That's what it's for. Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'bad faith', but suing for contractual violations is what the Tucker Act is for. If 'bad faith' is actually a tort claim, then you can sue under the tort act. So I'm unsure what your point is, here.
 
2009-07-30 12:55:07 AM  
cabbyman: Sad? We should be dancing in the streets!

Yes, we should be thrilled that law is being made by lobbyists. Asshole.
 
2009-07-30 12:57:30 AM  
Shryke: Obdicut: You have not responded to one huge way that it is definitely easier to sue the government-- they don't have the same resources to apply to the case as the private company does.

It's a pointless assertion. Additionally, it's probably faulty: government legal resources are notoriously UNDER staffed. Not so for insurance companies.

You have done absolutely nothing to support this argument.

It's obvious.

And yes, you can sue for bad faith in a contract, as well, if that's what you mean, through the Tucker Act

No.

"Explicitly excluded are suits in which a claim is based on a tort by the government"

Once again, more evidence the government's vulnerability to tort is *extremely* limited.


Don't worry, you will be happy to know corporations will soon be tort-free soon.
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report