COMMENTARY: Labor Law Provides Possible Solution to Hospital Disputes with Insurance Companies | EDITORIAL: Cruel. Petty. Vindictive | READER POLL: What Issues Are Most Important to You?
CIGNA and Anthem policy holders are not the only insurance carriers that have been impacted by disputes with Mary Washington Healthcare. Those of us who have AETNA PPO Advantage Supplement medicare policies have been out of network for over a year. Our policy is part of my retirement package, so we are stuck with Aetna. Spotsylvania Hospital system is accepting our Advantage policy, but I live in the city, and the rescue squad will only take city residences to Mary Washington Hospital. This summer I had to drive my husband to Spotsylvania Hospital where he was admitted and stayed for 3 days. I am grateful I could drive him, but wonder what would have happened if driving him was not a possibility. At our age this is not a good situation. We are paying a lot of money for our supplemental policy, plus what we pay for Medicare. You are supposed to be able to take a PPO policy out of network, but I still have no idea what would happen to us if we had a serious issue and we had to use the rescue squad....would they turn us away at MWHS? If admitted, would we then be responsible for enormous bills, because they are refusing to bill our Aetna Advantage Supplement PPO?
Excellent! Thank you. Let's see how much of a hypocrite or "Christian" Rabih is on Monday night. So far he has never failed to disappoint the students, parents, educators in Spotsylvania. We will see if he'd rather continue political rear kissing and starve the kids or do the right thing.
If you want take this into a culture war, there is no better way than to post a comment like this, a comment that risks making people dig their heels in to fight against this.
You do see that your comment is fueling the war?
You're allowed to fight political wars as long as there's no actual attrition. But this is NOT one of those times.
I turned a cheek when you did it with the books. "If the complaining parents cared," you said in your board comments "they would be challenging the books."
And so they did. Your comments made that happen. Your comments ticked Jen off and she launched a slew of challenges that are still being heard. She wasn't challenging before you made that comment, even though she had been speaking on that issue for months. And I'm not inferring causation from correlation: she told me it was the reason.
Fine. Books are books. And I and many others can support the librarians. Making those comments just catapulted us into a political book war that most people felt was inevitable.
And then you proposed an "opt-out" and I cannot fathom that it was anything other than a little play at politics, calculated to present a reasonable solution that the other side would most certainly ignore because when you presented you began with "this is your chance to prove that this concern is legitimate. If you don't vote for this, you prove that this has all been posturing."
What human being would vote "yes" to that proposal after you presented it with that language? Do you know how humans work? NOBODY would vote for that. It was going to fail before you finished the second sentence. And so I wonder: do you not realize this or do you realize this and not care because the goal is to continue the cultural war?
Even when we 'win' the cultural war in an election, we still end up losing. I cannot be the only person who noticed that the triumph of Obama's presidency was followed by 4 years of Trump. Spotsy is red and if we fight a war, we are not certain of any type of victory. Because passion trumps logic any day of the week. And that means we need to diverge from culture wars and work toward discussion and compromise. And most importantly, toward presenting reasonable arguments without rhetoric.
And the comment I'm replying to is the epitome of rhetoric. In that comment you imply that Rabih will be evil and non-Christian if he doesn't vote the way you want him to.
That's a great way to ensure that he DOESNT vote that way. Because nobody likes to be railroaded in the manner you just tried to railroad him.
And I wouldn't normally care, but in this case there is some actual stuff at stake. Hungry kids. And a policy that would cause so much stress for my PTO, which donates pre-packaged snacks for lots of school events, that I can't let this go by.
CIGNA and Anthem policy holders are not the only insurance carriers that have been impacted by disputes with Mary Washington Healthcare. Those of us who have AETNA PPO Advantage Supplement medicare policies have been out of network for over a year. Our policy is part of my retirement package, so we are stuck with Aetna. Spotsylvania Hospital system is accepting our Advantage policy, but I live in the city, and the rescue squad will only take city residences to Mary Washington Hospital. This summer I had to drive my husband to Spotsylvania Hospital where he was admitted and stayed for 3 days. I am grateful I could drive him, but wonder what would have happened if driving him was not a possibility. At our age this is not a good situation. We are paying a lot of money for our supplemental policy, plus what we pay for Medicare. You are supposed to be able to take a PPO policy out of network, but I still have no idea what would happen to us if we had a serious issue and we had to use the rescue squad....would they turn us away at MWHS? If admitted, would we then be responsible for enormous bills, because they are refusing to bill our Aetna Advantage Supplement PPO?
Excellent! Thank you. Let's see how much of a hypocrite or "Christian" Rabih is on Monday night. So far he has never failed to disappoint the students, parents, educators in Spotsylvania. We will see if he'd rather continue political rear kissing and starve the kids or do the right thing.
If you want take this into a culture war, there is no better way than to post a comment like this, a comment that risks making people dig their heels in to fight against this.
You do see that your comment is fueling the war?
You're allowed to fight political wars as long as there's no actual attrition. But this is NOT one of those times.
I turned a cheek when you did it with the books. "If the complaining parents cared," you said in your board comments "they would be challenging the books."
And so they did. Your comments made that happen. Your comments ticked Jen off and she launched a slew of challenges that are still being heard. She wasn't challenging before you made that comment, even though she had been speaking on that issue for months. And I'm not inferring causation from correlation: she told me it was the reason.
Fine. Books are books. And I and many others can support the librarians. Making those comments just catapulted us into a political book war that most people felt was inevitable.
And then you proposed an "opt-out" and I cannot fathom that it was anything other than a little play at politics, calculated to present a reasonable solution that the other side would most certainly ignore because when you presented you began with "this is your chance to prove that this concern is legitimate. If you don't vote for this, you prove that this has all been posturing."
What human being would vote "yes" to that proposal after you presented it with that language? Do you know how humans work? NOBODY would vote for that. It was going to fail before you finished the second sentence. And so I wonder: do you not realize this or do you realize this and not care because the goal is to continue the cultural war?
Even when we 'win' the cultural war in an election, we still end up losing. I cannot be the only person who noticed that the triumph of Obama's presidency was followed by 4 years of Trump. Spotsy is red and if we fight a war, we are not certain of any type of victory. Because passion trumps logic any day of the week. And that means we need to diverge from culture wars and work toward discussion and compromise. And most importantly, toward presenting reasonable arguments without rhetoric.
And the comment I'm replying to is the epitome of rhetoric. In that comment you imply that Rabih will be evil and non-Christian if he doesn't vote the way you want him to.
That's a great way to ensure that he DOESNT vote that way. Because nobody likes to be railroaded in the manner you just tried to railroad him.
And I wouldn't normally care, but in this case there is some actual stuff at stake. Hungry kids. And a policy that would cause so much stress for my PTO, which donates pre-packaged snacks for lots of school events, that I can't let this go by.
Keep it up.
R. Kravetz