ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[GreecePwns]

Tort reform was in the past bill? If the answer is yes, I give one out of four. Call it the Party of No all you want, but the differences between ObamaCare and the Republican plan are stark and important (including the state discussion).

Yes, tort reform was in the passed bill.

Instead of one federal "death panel," Republicans wan't 50 state "death panels." They only came to that idea after the Democrats brought up the idea in the first place, and would rather have none at all for that matter. I think half is fair there.

[Night Strike]

Tort reform was in the past bill? If the answer is yes, I give one out of four. Call it the Party of No all you want, but the differences between ObamaCare and the Republican plan are stark and important (including the state discussion).

Yes, tort reform was in the passed bill.

Only if you count a micro-scale project in one state as actual tort reform.

[bedub1]

Interesting article from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99132.html

........But even if the Supremes act to spare us the ObamaCare train wreck, our health-care system is still a train wreck. This is the toughest wicket for Republicans.

Happily, a path back to the future exists that just might be politically actionable in a divided Washington. It involves not repealing ObamaCare but adding something to it—an optional federal charter for health insurers.

Under this charter, let's permit insurers to design their policies free of ObamaCare's mandated benefit levels and free of state regulation. Let's let these policies be purchasable with pre-tax dollars and allow them to satisfy ObamaCare's mandate requiring individuals to have insurance and employers to provide it.

Yes, we know the ObamaCare mandate is objectionable on philosophical and constitutional grounds, but since we're seemingly bent on taxing ourselves to make medical care available to those who can't or won't pay for it themselves, an individual mandate perhaps is the only way to short-circuit a collapse toward government-run, single-payer health care under the burden of free-riding.

What's the first thing the new nationally-chartered insurers would do? Rush out cheap, high-deductible policies, allaying some of the resentment that the mandate provokes among the young, healthy and footloose affluent. At the same time, these policies would quickly re-revolutionize ObamaCare from within. Here's why:

First, these folks could buy the minimalist coverage that (for various reasons) actually makes sense for them. They wouldn't be forced to buy gold-plated coverage they don't need so the money can subsidize the old and sick (the hidden tax logic of ObamaCare).

Secondly, this relatively healthy cohort would be covered for a rare major injury or illness. The rest of us wouldn't have to pick up the tab.

Thirdly, and when paired with a health savings account—as would happen as employers large and small rush to take advantage of a better option than ObamaCare now affords them—it would provide a much-needed kick of consumer discipline to the medical complex's pants, which has always been the conservative alternative to a creeping government takeover of medicine.

There's already a base of sensible Democrats who've championed exactly such reforms..............

[PLAYER57832]

Deleted the images to save space, but it's a pretty good summary of what motivates me.

[PLAYER57832]

I FIRMLY disagree, beginning with the fact that the original so-called "Obama" plan was very much mirrored after the previous Republican plan, but this time around they simply walked off saying "no.. its a stupid Democratic idea".

First, that's not what really happened. I watched the Great Healthcare Debate and I closely followed what happened after that historic debate (which, really, there needs to be more of). What happened was that the Democrats ignored all of the Republican ideas so that when the bill went to a vote, we got "The Republicans are the party of no."

You're not talking the historical debate, that is the plan put forward with Clinton. You refer only to recent events, when Republicans decided to be the "party of no".

We've argued this incessantly for a while, and you continue to maintain that the Republican response was "No, it was a stupid Democratic idea," rather than admitting that the Democrats said, "The Republicans can't do anything because we're in power so let's ignore them." And the latter is really what happened.

This time around, what the Republicans tried to put forward was not a reasonable plan. It was merely fodder so they could claim "gee, we tried...". AND, those proposals came pretty late in the game.

I will say that I find it strange that someone as intelligent as you would buy into this idea that returning to the party that has pretty much had full control, who has made the most critical changes in history in a negative way, should somehow be considered the "light at the end of the tunnel".

Returning to the party who had full control is not light at the end of the tunnel. First, the Republican party has changed (or at least says it has changed) substantially. [/quote]
They have gotten far worse. They no longer even pretend to be for the average person. With Reagan, you had to listen close to get the "real message". Today... its all there upfront. "Support the rich folks, give them tax breaks ... it will mean more jobs for everyone".. nevermind that this is not what actually happens in the long term (very short term, but not long term). Oh, yes.. and utterly ignore anything remotely "environmental" as "not based on science" and/or "just too expensive", "too limiting to commerce"... etc, etc, etc.

So, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Second, the reason I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt is because, after reading the Democrats' ideas, plans and bills and reading the Republicans' ideas and plans, I support the Republicans' plans more than the Democrats' plans. Third, it's not a "light at the end of the tunnel." I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done before the end of the tunnel is reached.

Well, we just disagree here.

With respect to healthcare specifically, I would like to see a reduction in prices overall and that means insurance companies need to be held accountable. I think the Republican plan will do this better than the Democratic plan. Consider that most employers are raising the employee contributions to health insurance subsequent to the passage of the Democratic plan. That, in and of itself, is worth noting - the insurance companies are benefitting from the Democratic plan and now people are going to have to pay more for health insurance than they did before the plan. There's something wrong with that.

It is worth noting, but the Republican plan had nothing to do with and will have nothing to do with changing that.

Their big emphasis is "competition". Competition in things like healthcare.. necessary services, just does not work, not in the traditional market sense.

It might be OK that we now cannot buy a toaster that lasts more than 2 years. Profits, competition... give us that. That kind of "economy" in healthcare is not what we need. Providing healthcare insurance should not and cannot be a profit-motivated endeavor or we will have no solution, ever.

[GreecePwns]

Tort reform was in the past bill? If the answer is yes, I give one out of four. Call it the Party of No all you want, but the differences between ObamaCare and the Republican plan are stark and important (including the state discussion).

Yes, tort reform was in the passed bill.

Only if you count a micro-scale project in one state as actual tort reform.

The whole healthcare bill is in effect as much as Cliff Lee is a Yankee.

[GreecePwns]

Tort reform was in the past bill? If the answer is yes, I give one out of four. Call it the Party of No all you want, but the differences between ObamaCare and the Republican plan are stark and important (including the state discussion).

Yes, tort reform was in the passed bill.

Only if you count a micro-scale project in one state as actual tort reform.

The healthcare bill in effect as much as Cliff Lee is a Yankee.

[Night Strike]

You're not talking the historical debate, that is the plan put forward with Clinton. You refer only to recent events, when Republicans decided to be the "party of no".

Their no vote meant nothing as they did not have even 1 vote to block a super-majority, so saying they're the "party of no" is a complete distortion of reality. Whether the entire party voted yes or no was irrelevant as Democrats had all the votes they needed within their own party, so it was their own party that "watered it down". It's lies like this that led to the massive House turnover we saw yesterday.

[jbrettlip]

In our case, we never got the paperwork, until the time had expired. I called on day 60 to try to convert and was told "sorry, too short a time". I persisted and it turned out they could fax the info. However, according to them, we were still eligible for COBRA. (actually, the first time I called, they had the wrong expiration date and that was part of the problem, by the time it was corrected ... it was too late. There are no "backtracks" on these programs. ).

Now, note that COBRA coverage would be about $800, still less than the roughly $1300 for 2 individual policies (needed because of conditions ... according to the agents with whom I spoke, all 15 of them). That would be 3/4 of my husband's monthly paycheck. He will be eligible for employer-based insurance when he becomes fulltime, but guess what .. no pre-existing conditions. So, basically, I was willing to put the insurance charges on our credit cards. (I DO have that much credit, yes) for the 4-5 months or so, just to keep our continued coverage. However, as I said, I got told "no".

Now, I admit that I should have begun fighting this 2 months ago, not just 3 weeks ago. We had thought my husband would have a fulltime job, which was admittedly a stupid assumption.

This is just one of the worst of many "wonderful surprises" I have had to face this past week.

Speaking of surprises, it is no surprise to me that you manage to post on CC forum all day, everyday and then blame the system for your lack of responsibility. Seriously, your family is without health care because you couldn't be bothered to get the paperwork?

[PLAYER57832]

The Republican Ideas

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Not in the passed bill. Republicans went to this after the other things they griped about were added.

First, this would be a nightmare to regulate because insurance is dictated by states, not the federal government. No one could tell who would even be in charge if a company issued a policy to someone in a different state.

Also, would not result in better insurance. This was a scam perpetrated by the big companies, to allow THEM to locate themselves in the states with the "most favorable" plans for THEM. Nothing at all would encourage companies to offer more or better coverage. Further, since the primary "purchaser" of insurance is not the one who uses it, quality overall DOES go down, unless laws are put in place dictating minimums.

This is the case in PA. Much of the "insurance" offered here is so much worse than Medicaid or ChIP (government plans) that those systems are now heavily overrun. The numbers of uninsured have grown. And, I mean WORKING people, not deadbeats. Particularly people with ANY pre-existing conditions.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

I'm not exactly sure, there wasn't much of an issue made of this. Probably in the passed bill then, but for argument's sake we'll say no.

This can already happen to a point. It is the main reason people join these groups.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

In the passed bill, although through federal government, not through states. This is the whole deal about death panels. We'll call it half.

States ALREADY individually regulate insurance. Not the same as the panel idea. The panel was because right now,a LOT of research and data is collected by insurance companies who do not have to share it. Therefore each company has their own "equation" as to cost-benefits and so forth. Of course, since historically insurance companies have not had to carry people forever (only up to lifetime limits), the real onus has been to cure essentiall healthy people/those with minor issues and to force others off the plan through various means.. or just dilly dally approval of treatments until the person dies.

The panel was to be an independent group that would assess which treatments are effective, what is warrented. A particular point of concern is/was hospice care of elderly. Anyone having a loved one in that situation knows a LOT of reform is needed there. The fact is that there comes a time when doctors plain need to accept that a person will die.. that this end is not a "failure". Not when the person is a frail 90 year old facing terminal cancer, not when the person is an 84 year old man with heavy dementia and serious pain... at some point, families want/ask for and have the right to know about pallitive care as opposed to lengthy and painful procedures that cost way too much and do little or nothing to enhance the quality or length of the person's life. THAT, however, got misrepresented as "death panels" by idiots such as Palin.

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Tort reform - In the passed bill.

I don't know if it was or was not included. I will say "no". BUT, here is the thing. Simple tort reform isn't the solution because doctors and administrations intendionally screwing up or just being laxy are not why accidents happen. Accidents happen becuase no human is perfect and doctors are put under INTENSE pressure to succeed.

I looked into this very, very seriously. What we need are several things.

#1 ALL of these limits and definitions need to be set by an independent panel including doctors, administrators, ethicists (including religious representatives), patients, etc.
#2. Step up criminal penalties for the very few truly criminal doctors.. those who truly intend harm or are so obviously negligent that it amounts to "intentional harm" (similiar to driving drunk amounts to "intentional harm") Definitions of what that means is up to panel. Anyone harmed by these people will be fully covered by a "criminal coverage" plan.. sort of equivalent to "unisured motorist coverage". Because the cases are few, a lot of coverage should be automatic for very little money.
#3. Gross negligence. Again, defined by panel.
Patient damage will be fully covered, included a SET limit for various injuries and employment damage. The limits should be quite high. This will be somewhat similar to "underinsured coverage" for motorists.
Again, these cases should be relatively few, but when they occur, the impetus needs to be on fellow doctors and administrators to pick up the problems. It should not be up to the patient to just sue. This will happen several ways. First, by random checks and a rating system. Hospitals and such that rate well will get bonuses or some positive benefit (perhaps a slightly higher rate of pay, priority for new equipment, etc. ... leave the details up to the panel). Self-reported problems will NOT count "against" the group. Problems caught by outsiders will, though panel can "weight" issues somewhat. The goal here is not to penalize the hospital, the goal is to encourage them to find problems. As an example, a doctor that presents credentials that initially seem OK, but the school is later found to be deficient... will not count against the hospital as much as a doctor that has no credentials at all would. (again, panel can work out details).
Bulk of investigation shall be into preventing future occurances. The panel will investigate fully how this happened and make reccomendations. They might include things like more training requirements, better supervision of staff or just plain more sleep. Might also include implementing better systems.
#4 Almost everything else will be "human error". This will be covered by universal "no fault" insurance. If an accident happens, patient's problem is covered. As above, system is put in place to correct. (won't go into it all to save space).

In addition:
--A computerized illness "key" similar to biological identification keys. It would evolve over time until eventually it would take very little direct skill for a doctor to diagnose problems. Just as in biology, skill will absolutely be required to identify and properly use the key. However, more attention can be paid to actually treating and preventing illnesses, rather than just identifying them

-- collation of data concerning effectiveness of all treatments. Insurance companies have a lot of this information, but don't have to share it. It should be available to all. Certain treatments will inevitably "shake out" as effective, others not. Doctors should have the option of choosing amongst various working options (things that work well in one situation might not work in another). However, over time, those treatments that just don't work will be eliminated. Within this will be allowances for experimentation (properly controlled, designed), trying "last ditch" stuff for cases considered "hopeless", but with attention to above hospice guidelines. For example.. if a 90 year old woman has a brain tumor considered hopeless, it probably is best to just "let nature take its course" (probably.. could be exceptions). If its a 24 month old, and all other options have been tried, it might be worth trying that drug that has only a 30% chance of success, even if it could mean pain and so forth. Such decisions cannot be made by any computer program or set system. They can only be made by individuals.

You can't get everything you want when you're the minority party. One and a half out of four things - a conservative estimate, one could really say three out of four - is a good enough compromise effort from the Democrats to base their Party of No accusations.

[PLAYER57832]

post deleted.

[saxitoxin]

Speaking of surprises, it is no surprise to me that you manage to post on CC forum all day, everyday and then blame the system for your lack of responsibility. Seriously, your family is without health care because you couldn't be bothered to get the paperwork?

Nice try. The REASON I am online so much right now is because I have been spending so much time on the phone, dealing with various things, (mostly when my kids are napping).

And no, it is not "because I couldn't be bothered to get the paperwork" (try reading.. it helps). It is because of a combination of being denied paperwork we were supposed to legally get (again, the multiple phone calls, etc...), etc. See, low-level administrators in small towns have a LOT of power. My husband had the job someone wanted for a relative... so.. you put it all together.

The insurance company, which I will decline to name (other than to say it actually is not Blue Cross), is one that has a history of causing people problems. We may have some legal recourse (one reason I am not naming them), but here is the thing. The system should not be such that this would even happen.

Player, taking together all of the hints and vague references here and there that you've dropped about the incredible cycle of drama to which your family seems to be exposed has helped paint a good picture for many of us about the roller-coaster of misfortune that seems to be your life. While I'm sure we are all empathetic to your plight, it's really not possible for any of us to participate in any remotely intellectual discussion when the frame you've forced on us is your family.

It really pains me to say this, however, in dialectic Marxism we have a little known term (little known in the US, anyway) for a group outside the proletariat that can never be liberated, the lumpenproletariat. Who, regrettably, must be resigned to the lot that life has cast them. I'm just going to leave it at that.

edit: punctuation error

[jbrettlip]

Speaking of surprises, it is no surprise to me that you manage to post on CC forum all day, everyday and then blame the system for your lack of responsibility. Seriously, your family is without health care because you couldn't be bothered to get the paperwork?

Nice try. The REASON I am online so much right now is because I have been spending so much time on the phone, dealing with various things, (mostly when my kids are napping).

And no, it is not "because I couldn't be bothered to get the paperwork" (try reading.. it helps). It is because of a combination of being denied paperwork we were supposed to legally get (again, the multiple phone calls, etc...), etc. See, low-level administrators in small towns have a LOT of power. My husband had the job someone wanted for a relative... so.. you put it all together.

The insurance company, which I will decline to name (other than to say it actually is not Blue Cross), is one that has a history of causing people problems. We may have some legal recourse (one reason I am not naming them), but here is the thing. The system should not be such that this would even happen.

Yes, of course, the evil corporation would risk getting sued and losing their licensing and credibility in order to not give you paperwork. How did I not see that??? Here's what I, a responsible adult, would have done: 1) Call them every day 2) Ask them to fax or email me the paperwork 3) drive over there to pick it up 4) Send a certified letter requesting the paperwork 5) Call the insurance company directly, if the former employer isn't helping 6) Send more certified mail. Then you would have legal recourse. But it sounds to me like you didn't show much interest in getting this done. And the whole "my husband was fired due to the employer's relative wanting a job......I call bullshit. How good could he be at his job (whatever it is) if the 2 of you could not get a couple of forms FOR 60 DAYS!!!???

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, of course, the evil corporation would risk getting sued and losing their licensing and credibility in order to not give you paperwork. How did I not see that??? Here's what I, a responsible adult, would have done: 1) Call them every day 2) Ask them to fax or email me the paperwork 3) drive over there to pick it up 4) Send a certified letter requesting the paperwork 5) Call the insurance company directly, if the former employer isn't helping 6) Send more certified mail. Then you would have legal recourse. But it sounds to me like you didn't show much interest in getting this done. And the whole "my husband was fired due to the employer's relative wanting a job......I call bullshit. How good could he be at his job (whatever it is) if the 2 of you could not get a couple of forms FOR 60 DAYS!!!???

I have gone into this too much already, but an "evil corporation" is not even involved. It was a small, local municipality. That makes all the difference. They are not subject to the rules of corporations. And, my husband wasn't fired. He was simply not converted to permanent -- another difference and a big reason for the whole "cobra" issue.

And if you think I WASN'T on the phone, etc you are an idiot. That is exactly why I have been on CC so much lately... as I already said.

[jbrettlip]

Yes, of course, the evil corporation would risk getting sued and losing their licensing and credibility in order to not give you paperwork. How did I not see that??? Here's what I, a responsible adult, would have done: 1) Call them every day 2) Ask them to fax or email me the paperwork 3) drive over there to pick it up 4) Send a certified letter requesting the paperwork 5) Call the insurance company directly, if the former employer isn't helping 6) Send more certified mail. Then you would have legal recourse. But it sounds to me like you didn't show much interest in getting this done. And the whole "my husband was fired due to the employer's relative wanting a job......I call bullshit. How good could he be at his job (whatever it is) if the 2 of you could not get a couple of forms FOR 60 DAYS!!!???

I have gone into this too much already, but an "evil corporation" is not even involved. It was a small, local municipality. That makes all the difference. They are not subject to the rules of corporations. And, my husband wasn't fired. He was simply not converted to permanent -- another difference and a big reason for the whole "cobra" issue.

And if you think I WASN'T on the phone, etc you are an idiot. That is exactly why I have been on CC so much lately... as I already said.

Local municipalities do not run health care companies. They contract with them, so there was a third party you should/could have talked to. I don't care how long you were on the phone, you didn't accomplish shit. And now it is someone else's fault. And I am the idiot, but the idiot with health insurance.

[PLAYER57832]

Local municipalities do not run health care companies. They contract with them, so there was a third party you should/could have talked to. I don't care how long you were on the phone, you didn't accomplish shit. And now it is someone else's fault.

When you have your degree in business law, specializing in these issues... you can talk. Until then.. you have no clue of what you are talking about. PERIOD.

And I will be, too, soon.. only at TAXPAYER expense instead of employer expense. Pretty much a bit win for the insurance companies, which was my whole point.

And, in the meantime, if we get seriously injured TAX PAYERS will still be paying. We will likely go bankrupt, which in PA means losing our house, but taxpayers will pay the bulk, even so.

And I am the idiot, but the idiot with health insurance.

For now, you do, for now......

[saxitoxin]

And I am the idiot, but the idiot with health insurance.

(PERIOD!)

[Night Strike]

The Republican Ideas

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Not in the passed bill. Republicans went to this after the other things they griped about were added.

First, this would be a nightmare to regulate because insurance is dictated by states, not the federal government. No one could tell who would even be in charge if a company issued a policy to someone in a different state.

And the problem with this is what? Actually, that's the entire point of instituting it!!! Allowing insurance policies to be sold across state lines will remove the interferences that are in place keeping prices artificially high. If my state has a maximum deductible of $500, but I have enough money on hand and am healthy enough and want a deductible of $2000 to lower the premium rates, I should be able to see if an insurance company in another state offers that plan. The whole point of removing the over-regulations is that people can then truly shop for the plans that best fit them, which is the only way to actually lower costs.

[PLAYER57832]

And I am the idiot, but the idiot with health insurance.

(PERIOD!)

Are you sure you have insurance? Because unless you have gotten seriously ill and actually had to use it, the truth is you really don't know if you actually have the coverage you think you have.
And, you can call me "stupid" all you want, but I do know that much.

[saxitoxin]

And I am the idiot, but the idiot with health insurance.

For now, you do, for now......

[PLAYER57832]

The Republican Ideas

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

Not in the passed bill. Republicans went to this after the other things they griped about were added.

First, this would be a nightmare to regulate because insurance is dictated by states, not the federal government. No one could tell who would even be in charge if a company issued a policy to someone in a different state.

And the problem with this is what? Actually, that's the entire point of instituting it!!! Allowing insurance policies to be sold across state lines will remove the interferences that are in place keeping prices artificially high. If my state has a maximum deductible of $500, but I have enough money on hand and am healthy enough and want a deductible of $2000 to lower the premium rates, I should be able to see if an insurance company in another state offers that plan. The whole point of removing the over-regulations is that people can then truly shop for the plans that best fit them, which is the only way to actually lower costs.

#1 mandating minimum coverages is not keeping costs "artificially high", it is ensuring that companies cannot claim to be offering "insurance" that covers nothing.

#2 The customer in this case is not hte user of the plan, so the ONLY real incentive is to cut costs. The only "fitting" is for the absolute lowest cost allowable by law, except for higher paid positions where they understand they have to worry about hiring qualified people.

#3 The "whole point" of removing regulations is to allow large corporations (NOT small businesses, but large corporations, mind you) to buy the cheapest plans with the worst coverage available and still claim they are "covering their employees". What this really means is that those people pay into plans but still cannot afford to go to the doctor, so when they actually get sick, they STILL wind up on taxpayer rolls, exactly as if they had NO INSURANCE. That is what this so-called "plan" is really about.

[jbrettlip]

Local municipalities do not run health care companies. They contract with them, so there was a third party you should/could have talked to. I don't care how long you were on the phone, you didn't accomplish shit. And now it is someone else's fault.

When you have your degree in business law, specializing in these issues... you can talk. Until then.. you have no clue of what you are talking about. PERIOD.

And I will be, too, soon.. only at TAXPAYER expense instead of employer expense. Pretty much a bit win for the insurance companies, which was my whole point.

And, in the meantime, if we get seriously injured TAX PAYERS will still be paying. We will likely go bankrupt, which in PA means losing our house, but taxpayers will pay the bulk, even so.

And I am the idiot, but the idiot with health insurance.

For now, you do, for now......

And now you are going to pretend you have a law degree? HAHAHHAHAHHA. That is almost as ridiculous as you doing your own taxes and not knowing that there is a cap on social security tax. An out of work lawyer.....unbelievable.

[PLAYER57832]

And now you are going to pretend you have a law degree? HAHAHHAHAHHA. That is almost as ridiculous as you doing your own taxes and not knowing that there is a cap on social security tax. An out of work lawyer.....unbelievable.

I don't have a degree, but I do know how to contact attorneys.. and tend to believe they know more than you, particularly since they had ALL the pertinent information and you don't.

[jbrettlip]

And now you are going to pretend you have a law degree? HAHAHHAHAHHA. That is almost as ridiculous as you doing your own taxes and not knowing that there is a cap on social security tax. An out of work lawyer.....unbelievable.

You will have to find where I say that.

... and per my "not knowing there is a cap".. try again. I did make a misstatement, because, see, I have been rather distracted too many times when posting lately, because I am often on the phone, etc. It has nothing to do with what I "don't know". (PS as of 2007, you paid SS on the first 76K. If you worked for more than one employer, they might collect more, but you would get it back in your refund).

then I will give you one piece of advice: Prioritize and Focus. If you did that, you may have 100 less posts on CC, but you MIGHT have insurance. Multi-tasking, in your case, seems to do two things half assed. You accomplish nothing.

[PLAYER57832]

then I will give you one piece of advice: Prioritize and Focus. If you did that, you may have 100 less posts on CC, but you MIGHT have insurance. Multi-tasking, in your case, seems to do two things half assed. You accomplish nothing.

Again, you just don't know what you are talking about. Yes, prioritizing does matter, but it is my CC posts, not my conversations that sometimes fail. I post when I am on hold, so I can stay better focused, not lose my temper so easily. Then when I get someone, I fastpost. Granted, I should just save, but that takes more thought.