A Hospital Could Still Ruin Your Life, But Soon It Won't Be Able To Collect Afterward

You've probably heard the horror stories: sponges left inside surgical incisions, people falling and breaking limbs, bedsores, pressure ulcers, various infections from prolonged use of catheters, patients receiving incompatible blood, and so forth.

What you may not have known is that hospitals could then bill Medicare for the cost of repairing these preventable damages. I'm nothing short of astonished to discover that this has been going on for so long -- and then, even more astonished that this, in the era of Bush, is about to change.

It's a huge anomaly for the Bush administration: They are actually about to act upon a good directive that Congress gave them in a 2006 law. The bottom line is that if somebody enters a hospital with a different ailment and ends up falling and breaking their hip, the hospital can't bill Medicare for the hip repair surgery. Until now, they've been able to do that. No kidding.

No more. The New York Times reports:

"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that patients develop 1.7 million infections in hospitals each year, and the CDC says those infections cause or contribute to the death of 99,000 people a year -- about 270 a day."

And then, the ones who do live -- the hospital gets Medicare payment for repairing the damage? How long did this go on?

Oh, well, somebody finally noticed. And it didn't escape my notice that among those who did were the private insurers. Again from The Times:

"Private insurers are considering similar changes, which they said could multiply the benefits and savings for patients."

Yeah, I'm sure that was their first consideration in the matter. Well, sometimes one must take the sporadic windfalls of life where one can get them.

And, if you were worried about where the bills for these screw-ups would finally go, this is actually one of the reasons it took a year or so for this to be implemented. Again, The Times:

"When the rules were proposed in May, consumer advocates said they feared that some hospitals might charge patients for costs that Medicare refused to pay. But the final rules say, 'The hospital cannot bill the beneficiary for any charges associated with the hospital-acquired complication.' "

Enjoy it while it lasts, seniors.

There's more: "A Hospital Could Still Ruin Your Life, But Soon It Won't Be Able To Collect Afterward" >>

Josh Marshall Doesn't Fact Check? Who Checked That "Fact?"

I am posting this because a lot of folks who follow Political Animal might not have seen the latest development in the back story to Kevin Drum's post entitled "Facts On The Ground." If you haven't you are either going to be shocked or you are going to be laughing your head off.

Let me recap. This morning the Los Angeles Times published the Op-Ed of a man named Michael Skube. Mr. Skube claims to be a journalism school professor. That fact is not really substantiated. And as will become apparent, one has to wonder if somebody shouldn't check.

The Op-Ed entitled Blogs: All the noise that fits examined the possibility that because of the blogs we are suffering from entirely too much information.

Bloggers now are everywhere among us, and no one asks if we don't need more full-throated advocacy on the Internet. The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined.

And to think most bloggers are doing all this on the side. "No man but a blockhead," the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, "ever wrote but for money." Yet here are people, whole brigades of them, happy to write for free. And not just write. Many of the most active bloggers -- Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post -- are insistent partisans in political debate. Some reject the label "journalist," associating it with what they contemptuously call MSM (mainstream media); just as many, if not more, consider themselves a new kind of "citizen journalist" dedicated to broader democratization.

He complains loudly that bloggers are claiming all of the "rights" of journalists with few of the obligations.

Ok, I can see why some print journalism school professor might insist that bloggers aspire to traditional journalistic standards. We should be expected to check our facts. We should be expected to be careful not to jump to conclusions. We should try to learn something about the topic at hand before we write. If we want to be treated like journalists, even citizen journalists, we need to act like journalists.

Kevin pointed out that

these four examples, the first three are all professional writers and the fourth is a venture-funded site with a paid staff. If you're going to extol "thorough fact-checking and verification" over the blogosphere's "potpourri of opinion," you really ought to fact-check your assertions first. Otherwise you're just making things too easy for us.

A nice day was spent over at Political Animal examining all the various aspects of the post. It generated one of the better comment threads in months. A good time was had by all.

While we spent an afternoon and evening exchanging opinions, Josh Marshall was engaged in journalism. Guess what he was told by Mr. Skube in an email.

"I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ..."

Josh "followed up noting my surprise that he didn't seem to remember what he'd written in his own opinion column on the very day it appeared and that in any case it cut against his credibility somewhat that he wrote about sites he admits he'd never read."

Skube replied

"I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ... "

Think about what Skube, who fancies himself the very model of a modern journalism professor, just said. It is bad enough that he allowed an editor to insert unsubstantiated "facts" in a piece critical of bloggers for not fact checking, but he admits that he doesn't know much about Josh Marshall. How can anybody claiming to be a journalism professor in 2007 not know about the pioneering work Josh Marshall is doing at TPM? Marshall and his crew are on the cutting edge of journalism in the post-television age.

For all you journalism professors out there who haven't heard of Josh Marshall, go over to his "blog" and take a look. You will find a newspaper sans newsprint. I will grant you that Marshall writes from a political point of view, but I would submit that historically many, if not most, newspapers were written from a particular political point of view. They still are. They are all held to same journalistic standards, standards Marshall and his team of professional journalists clearly try to meet.

So there you have it, Skube is a fact free opinionated ignoramus who, without checking his facts, wrote an op-ed calling his betters fact free opinionated ignoramuses who don't check their facts.

The alternative story is that he allowed an equally ignorant editor at the LA Times to insert "facts" into his piece without doing the most cursory examination of the inserted "facts."

What a waste of ink. I hope his dean calls him in for a chat tomorrow. Maybe he and the dean could spend some time reading the PA comments thread. They might learn something.

There's more: "Josh Marshall Doesn't Fact Check? Who Checked That "Fact?"" >>

I do believe an(other) “I told you so” is in order

The New York Times took a huge step toward atoning for that horrible piece of puffery that O’Hanlon and Pollack have been peddling since they returned from their choreographed tour de farce visit to Iraq, when today they published an op-ed that was group written by NCO’s from the 82^nd Airborne who are nearing the end of their 15 month combat rotation. Fifteen months in the weeds trumps eight days of a totally scripted stunt. I know upon whom I choose to bestow credibility.

I would like to point out that this is the second time these Soldiers have come close to the end of this rotation. They were nearing the end when their tour was extended as part of the shell game that the Pentagon is ludicrously calling “the Surge™.” One of the soldiers credited with the piece was shot in the head (he is expected to survive) in the intervening time since he should have shipped out for home.

I am frankly sickened by the feel-good, happy-talk, clap-trap that is getting peddled in the run up to congress reconvening and getting down to debating the funding for the next fiscal year.

I am not alone. In fact, I would much prefer to be in the company of these guys than the cheerleader Michael Yon, or any of the squawking parrots running around Washington posing as “Very Serious People” and blathering on that we need another Friedman Unit.

The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY

Published: August 19, 2007

Baghdad

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias. (Click here for full op-ed)

I would point out that these reports have been readily available, and I have been blogging about similar events practically since Resident Evil scowled “bring ‘em on.” (Seriously, has anyone ever met a bigger dipshit than this guy?) In other words, this is not my first "I told you so."

The scene that these young, tough, seasoned NCO’s describe is pretty much the story I have been hearing for the last two and a half years from the returned vets I have come in contact with.

The first thing that must be done is admitting that we are an army of occupation in a hostile land. There is no military solution, nor is the requisite political progress being made.

The fact that Resident Evil drove us over a cliff in Iraq and leaves us with no good options and a broken military must also be owned up to.

Merely accepting reality has the foam-flecked loonies sharpening their knives for the stab in the back trope to be cranked out from the Mighty Wurlitzer. They are already blowing their tops about “surrendering to al Qaeda” or some such nonsense.

It has been less than a week since wingnut chickenhawk Congressman Doug Lamborn of the CO-05, who, incidentally, has never worn the uniform of his country (unless you count those little flag lapel pins) visited the war zone for one day and started the “blame the military themselves for losing an unwinnable war" meme. His stones are so big that he felt it perfectly proper that he should admonish the soldiers he met on the lone day he spent in Iraq – Soldiers who have had their tours extended to 15 months (450+ days versus one day) – by telling them they could win if they wanted to.

The last time out, it was the right that blamed the military and the Democrats, and even individual soldiers themselves, for failing to win in Vietnam. They blamed everyone but the real culprits – the warmongers and death merchants. In other words, themselves.

Because it worked before, and because it is quite frankly all they have, they will try the bullshit bait-and-switch crap again, trying to blame everyone involved except themselves. Don’t let them get away with it this time. Remind them at every turn of just how wrong they have been. Hold them accountable. They are less than three of every ten people. For the better part of three decades, they have been claiming some sort of genius strategy, when all they have really been doing is shouting down the majority and impugning the patriotism of those who have the temerity to disagree with their fun-house-mirror vision of the world.

Sweet Mother of Pearl, don’t listen to them! And for the love of Habeas Corpus, the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, fucking fight back this time.

There's more: "I do believe an(other) “I told you so” is in order" >>

The President Tells Karl, "I'll Be On The Road Behind You Karl," Or Was it "I Wish I Could Quit You?"

So Long Turd Blossom was produced by CTPatriot2006. It was added to YouTube on August 18, 2007. It is tonight's funny.




CTPatriot2006 says this is "An ode to the resignation of Karl Rove. "Love Story" audio track originally produced by and broadcast on the Mike Malloy Show, one of the best political talk shows on the progressive dial (www.novamradio.com)."

There's more: "The President Tells Karl, "I'll Be On The Road Behind You Karl," Or Was it "I Wish I Could Quit You?"" >>

Debate Blogging

The ABC This Week Democratic debate just ended. I watched it with what started as a critical eye, set to pick apart the minutiae. Then I remembered that there are a gazillion blogs that will be doing that, so I’m just going to give my overall perceptions of each candidate.

I can’t really put my finger on it, but Barack Obama is like the guy from high school you wanted desperately to go out with, but once you went out with him, it turned out he does nothing for you. He's supposed to be perfect, so why is there no zip? Ladies? Know what I mean here? He presents himself very well, he has some good things to say, they are just so scripted it’s dizzying. Or they strike me that way, at least.

Hillary, too, is well scripted and polished and on-message. Of course, being able to control a message the way she does is a good quality in a lot of ways when it comes to selecting a president. She seems to be flirting with an apology for her vote on the AUMF.

John Edwards is forthright with his apology, and that plays well in a country that is sick to death of this war. He seemed to hit a lot of the right notes, and at times seemed downright presidential. At other times, he seems to flirt with schmaltz and that makes me roll my eyes.

Joe Biden amuses me. He always has, actually. I’m not sure what he is running for, certainly not president, most likely a cabinet position, and I think that would be just fine and dandy.

Chris Dodd is having a blast! He is having more fun than any candidate on the stage. That is because he might as well just come out and say “Hey, I’m running for Secretary of State!” And if we can’t get Bill Clinton, then Chris Dodd would be a good alternative.

Mike Gravel is clearly nuts. In his lucid moments, he says some things that need to be said, and makes some sense. But the rest of the time – that is to say most of the time – he’s the crazy uncle that you were afraid would send your significant other running for the exits when they met him. After one of his outbursts of unspeakable truth, my husband said “He’s insane. I love him.”

Dennis Kucinich – what the hell? He sure does say a lot of the things I want to hear, damn him anyway. Why does the Rob Schneider candidate have to be the one getting so much right?

Finally – as you might know if you have visited my blog, I am supporting Richardson in the primary. That is because he comes right out and says in plain English that he will restore the Constitution, Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment. And damnit, that is the most important thing. I trust him to end the war, I trust him to negotiate first and give diplomacy it’s proper due. He simply has the best resume. His presentation needs a little tweaking, but his message is right. If he isn’t on the ticket, I would prefer him in a diplomatic role. In fact, he falls between Bill Clinton and Chris Dodd on my short list for Secretary of State.

It’s early, the first vote has yet to be cast. But any one of the candidates on the stage – Gravel included – would do a better job of governing than the slavering authoritarians on the other side that would just finish scrapping the Constitution and the ideals that make us Americans.

There's more: "Debate Blogging" >>

Campaign Video of the Day -- August 19, 2007

Today's campaign video is called Joe Biden at the Iowa State Fair. This video shows the passion of Joe Biden on the Iraq war. Listen to his substance. It was posted by joebidenvids on the 17th of August.



If you find a good campaign video and want to nominate it, please email us at proctoring.congress@gmail.com subject: Campaign Video of the Day.

There's more: "Campaign Video of the Day -- August 19, 2007" >>