Comments for Lightkeepers Journal

Comment on New Blogsite by Laurie

Laurie — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:23:21 +0000

My daughter is pursuing a degree in psychology….and is not sure what she will do with it yet. I sent her the link to your new blog.

Laurie

Comment on New Blogsite by Denise Portis

Denise Portis — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:26:38 +0000

Love the new title… very appropriate.

Comment on Slacktivism is running rampant by Stacy

Stacy — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:26:16 +0000

Guilty as charged.

Yes, I will admit guilt to Slacktivism.

Comment on Three hints for finding the Ideal job by Terry Portis

Terry Portis — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:59:06 +0000

Katie, this is an istock.com photo. Their prices are very reasonable. I think I searched vision or future or something similar to find it.

Comment on Three hints for finding the Ideal job by Katie

Katie — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:53:48 +0000

I was wondering where you found this image. I would love to use it in a flyer (not for profit) but just as a background. Do you know who has copyrights? If it is you, may I have permission to use this photo once?

Thank you,
Katie

Comment on Healthcare Reform: A Balanced Viewpoint by Terry Portis

Terry Portis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:10:06 +0000

Jim, your explanation makes perfect sense and may indeed be the intent. This language, then, should be made more clear.

In emails I have had with various leaders in education and human services, there seems to be a lot of confusion and mis-information. I would say this is true proponents and opponents. People are not reading the bill, or are reading it and honestly coming to different conclusions as to what it says.

We need to make a distinction for those of us who are for healthcare reform, and yet do not believe the model proposed in this bill is the answer.

Comment on Healthcare Reform: A Balanced Viewpoint by Jim Tobias

Jim Tobias — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:47:28 +0000

I agree that legislative language isn’t very clear, but I don’t see how you can read it the way you indicate. It uses the word “enrollment” to mean the act of joining a plan, not who can join. That’s why this part of the bill uses dates. See the previous page, p. 353, to see the beginning of this Part (which is very small) entitled “PART 3—TREATMENT OF SPECIAL NEEDS PLANS”. The “extension” referred to is a date, amended from 2010 to either 2013 or 2016, depending on the plan under discussion. In any event, the only kind of plan referred to here is a “Specialized MA plan”, where “MA” stands for “Medicare Advantage”. It is in no way a new policy (just an amended date), a new program, a rule regarding existing private coverage, or any major change at all. Looking at the stuff collecting in my email inbox, I know that opponents of health insurance reform are seizing on “hot button” words and phrases and using them out of context, or, as in this case, inaccurately.

Comment on Healthcare Reform: A Balanced Viewpoint by Terry Portis

Terry Portis — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 17:04:58 +0000

Jim, thank you for your comment. I think we read Section 1177 differently, which is understandable given the wording of it. However, the section is called “Extension of Authority of Special Needs Plans to Restrict Enrollment.” It is difficult for me to come away with any other conclusion.

I am not talking about tort reform in a way that limits the ability of people to seek remediation in court. In my opinion we need to stabilize the malpractice insurance system by installing some level of predictability. I think this can be done in a way that protects patients. I would be not be in favor of any tort reform that does not protect patients and allow them to seek a significant financial settlement in the event of malpractice.

Comment on Healthcare Reform: A Balanced Viewpoint by Jim Tobias

Jim Tobias — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:46:02 +0000

Terry, thanks for this post, but I disagree with you on 2 points:

Section 1177 is about when enrollment can occur, not who is allowed to enroll. It says that the public option plan — like every private plan I’m aware of — can accept new participants during an annual enrollment period, but also right after diagnosis. The latter provision allows for people who are newly diagnosed with a disability to change their coverage to reflect the disability. It’s more inclusive and patient-focused than private plans, not less.

Tort reform is not a goal of mine. Litigation and malpractice insurance now amounts to less than 1% of health care costs. In a time when medical treatments are moving away from immediate physician supervision and off to other professionals and even automated systems, medical mistakes are growing — this is well documented. A malpractice lawsuit is the only remedy a patient has in the event of such a mistake. I can’t think of a good reason to limit the leverage that patients have, when I look at the huge insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital corporations on the other side of the scale.

Comment on Unemployment for Older Adults and People with Disabilities by Stacy

Stacy — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:56:02 +0000

Thanks, Terry, for that insight.
The day I was laid off, my 58 year old friend was laid off the same day. She was so close to retirement, yet now has to find a job again. And while companies cannot discriminate against somebody because of their age, I wonder how many companies do it, with the defense that the person wasn’t qualified enough or “just didn’t seem like a good fit for their company.”