Saintless

If I had a top ten list of things I hate in life, finding a new doctor would be right up there at the top. Along with paying bills (can’t I pay someone to take care of all of that for me??)

Anyway, I’ve been waking up every day for about a week with back pain, and it gets worse by the day. So, time to see a chiropractor, right? No, because I’m scared that they’ll mess my back up, and so I won’t go unless they come highly recommended. And they don’t do all sorts of new age, homeopathic type stuff. The only one I know of that fits that bill is in Draper, and I can’t get out there on a regular basis. So, it’s on to finding an orthopedic specialist. I decide that finding one from the Orthopedic Specialty Hospital would be a good place to start.

So, I tell UHC’s web site to show me all of the physicians affiliated with them, and pick a random one from the list and call. I’m then told that this doctor is no longer at the clinic I’m calling. So, I ask if all the doctors are orthopedic specialists (yes) and if they accept UHC insurance. That insurance question was a doozy, I tell ya! The woman on the other end of the phone blurts out some kind of confusing explanation about how they usually do but they can’t guarantee payment so she really doesn’t know. So, I try to simplify the question, and ask if any of the providers are on UHC’s provider list. Somehow, she modifies her answer to be less clear, and ‘they maybe are and maybe aren’t, but here’s the original doctor’s phone number that you asked for’.

Wow, that was painful.

So, it’s on to calling the original doctor I was looking for. This time, I verify that the doctor is indeed still practicing through wherever the hell it is I’m calling, that he does take UHC and he is taking new patients. Yep, yep and yep. So, I ask how long it will be before I can be seen. I’m then transferred to his assistant’s voicemail. Surprisingly, I actually got a call back about 5 minutes later, only to find out that it’ll be almost 2 weeks before I can be seen. Then I find out he specializes in knees and shoulders.

She was very nice and referred me to both a clinic (Spine Clinic) and another doctor, neither of which I can find in my insurance directory.

So, with an hour wasted, I’m back to square one. At this rate, I’ll end up waking up unable to move before I can find a doctor to help. And I was supposed to find a doctor to treat my endometriosis, a regular doctor (for annual checkups and medication refills) as well as a new dentist. I think I’ll go stick my head in a hole in the ground, instead.

BushCo just released a statement about the CHIP bill, with all sorts of outright lies. He’s the most pathetic excuse for a president that I can imagine. I sure hope America smartens up and picks a president who will be president of everyone, not just those who think he is God’s mouthpiece. Take a look at the rhetoric vs. reality, from the Democratic Caucus’s Senate Journal:

The Administration Incorrectly Asserts the Senate Bill Would Provide Coverage for Families Earning $83,000 or More.

RHETORIC: The Senate bill changes the focus of the Children’s Health Insurance Program “from those who cannot afford coverage to include families with incomes of up to $83,000 per year or even more.”
REALITY: The Children’s Health Insurance Program is a federal-state partnership where states make the determination as to eligibility levels. Under the Senate bill, any state that makes new plans to offer coverage for children in families above 300 percent of the Federal poverty level will receive lower matching funds for that coverage.

The Administration Incorrectly Describes the Program as Being Underfunded After the Authorization Expires.

RHETORIC: The bi-partisan Senate bill sets the Children’s Health Insurance Program on an “unsustainable course by expanding and then drastically underfunding the program in the future by at least $60 billion.”

REALITY: The Senate bill is fiscally responsible, following Democratic-established ‘Paygo’ rules. The bill provides health insurance coverage for an additional 3.2 million low-income children by implementing a modest increase in the excise tax on tobacco products. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting an increase in tobacco taxes to pay for children’s health care, higher tobacco taxes will result fewer smokers, particularly among teens. To be clear, this bill seeks to reauthorize the program for five years. Before the program expires in 2012, the Congress and a new administration will work to provide funding for this program.

The Administration Falsely Claims the Senate Bill Would Federalize Health Care in America.

RHETORIC: “The bill is inconsistent with the principal of choice for American consumers and instead goes too far in federalizing health care.”

REALITY: The Children’s Health Insurance Program is a public-private partnership that focuses on providing low-income children with health care coverage. The Senate measure in fact encourages public and private solutions to cover children.

The Administration Wrongly Asserts The Senate Bill Would Reverse the Course of Moving Adults Out of CHIP.

RHETORIC: “The Administration is also concerned that S. 1893 will delay the Administration’s efforts to transition adults out of SCHIP and into Medicaid.”

REALITY: The bi-partisan Senate measure curbs adult coverage in three key ways. First, the bill prohibits new waivers for parents and preserves the bar on new waivers for childless adults. Second, the bill calls on states covering childless adults to transition them out of the Children’s Health Insurance Program within two years. Third, federal funding for coverage of low-income parents in states with existing waivers will be reduced after a three to four year period.

The Administration Wrongly Describes the Bill’s Coverage of Pregnant Women.

RHETORIC: “The Administration strongly objects to provisions in [The Senate Bill] that wrongly weakens the current option available to States to cover unborn children and their mothers.”

REALITY: States will have an additional option to cover pregnant women as a state option as well as maintaining the options to cover them through regulation.