Fraud and abuse: Revisiting Jindal’s healthcare record.
Jun 19th, 2007 by Daniel Z.
I frequently discuss Congressman Jindal’s record as the head of the Louisiana Department of Health as one of the biggest reasons why we should vote against him. As the head of the Louisiana Department of Health, he was responsible for providing healthcare to the people in the state that cannot afford it for themselves. What was his solution? As we all know he turned a deficit into a surplus of over 200 million dollars. What most Jindal supporters don’t take the time to realize is that if the department is responsible for providing healthcare to those who cannot afford it, then running a 200 million dollar surplus is irresponsible! That is money that should have been spent on healthcare, but wasn’t.
In an article from the 2003 election, Jindal defends his job at the Louisiana Department of Health by stating that he eliminated fraud, waste and abuse within the department.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/14jindal1.htm
This, of course is another misrepresentation by Bobby Jindal and here is why. He may very well have eliminated some fraud, waste and abuse. By doing so he may very well have freed up some funds to help turn a deficit in a surplus. However, eliminating fraud, waste and abuse would NOT lead to reduced services. Eliminating fraud, waste and abuse would leave you with the SAME number of services being performed more efficiently at much lower costs. So there would have been no need to cut services, especially after he brought the department into the black.
So why did he cut those services? There is no good answer. There was no need to cut services after eliminating the deficit. Cutting those services was mismanagement, plain and simple. Doctors and nurses have personally told me that his cuts made it harder for them to provide patient care to those who needed it. They are the true healthcare experts; we should be listening to them!
(9 votes, average: 3.11 out of 5)
Loading ...
Loading ...
Your blurb does nothing to show any “fraud and abuse” on the part of Jindal. Of course I am assuming that is what you are intending to prove by entitling this new set of words that mean nothing as: “Fraud and abuse: Revisiting Jindal’s healthcare record.”
Again, if you are mad that politically he is not in favor of the state as being a primary caregiver in the medical business, then that is a legitimate point to make. But that is a political difference and nothing more. Eliminating 200 million from the DHH budget doesn’t mean that people went without medical services. They could have gotten services from elsewhere, such as from LaCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurers. Maybe some of that savings came from closing down rural health units that served very few persons and were ten miles from another health unit. Maybe combining the resources of two delapadated health services centers, Jindal not only saved the state millions in operating costs, but also the revamped and combined resources might actually serve everyone better than before. But of course you don’t acknowledge any of that because you don’t really care about details. You’re more concerned with manufacturing a headline out of incomplete facts. If not, then why would you entitle this article in the way you did? You even admit that his cuts did in fact eliminate “fraud and abuse.” What’s so bad about that?
Your whole angle here at this website makes sense when viewed in light of your history. Just throw as much crap out there, hope that the people reading this site are as unscrupulous as yourself and the refinery janitor, and pray that it sticks.
I’ve been to that dump of a sushi bar that you were raving about. Buffet sushi is never good sushi unless you are inhaling 40 rolls per sitting, which undoubtedly you are.
“Your blurb does nothing to show any “fraud and abuse” on the part of Jindal. ”
I never suggested that Jindal was guilty of fraud or abuse. Why do you assume. In fact, i suggested that he may have eliminated some of it while he was in the Department of Health. Again, did you bother to read what I wrote?
“Of course I am assuming that is what you are intending to prove by entitling this new set of words that mean nothing as: “Fraud and abuse: Revisiting Jindal’s healthcare record.” ”
You assumed wrong. Read the entire article. Thank you.
“Again, if you are mad that politically he is not in favor of the state as being a primary caregiver in the medical business, then that is a legitimate point to make.”
The issue on whether the state should be providing healthcare to those who cannot afford it to themselves is not applicable to this topic. The government currently does provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it and Jindal was put in charge of that department. His job was to make sure that people get the care they need. He did not do his job.
“Eliminating 200 million from the DHH budget doesn’t mean that people went without medical services. ”
Actually, it does. He had a budget and he failed to spend 200 million of it after eliminating the deficit. That is money that was budgeted to be spent on healtcare for people who cannot afford it. It wasn’t spent on them. Again, he didnt do his job.
“They could have gotten services from elsewhere, such as from LaCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurers. ”
Are you asserting that they did? I see no evidence that the people who lost their ability to get healthcare because of Jindal’s slashes where able to get care somewhere else. If they did, I would think that Jindal would have provided those figures to defend his choices. He hasn’t.
“Maybe some of that savings came from closing down rural health units that served very few persons and were ten miles from another health unit.”
Unfortunately, people on the northshore who lost their health clinics had two choices. Go to New Orleans or go to Baton Rouge. Definitely not “10 miles” away.
“Jindal not only saved the state millions in operating costs, but also the revamped and combined resources might actually serve everyone better than before.”
There is no evidence that the “might” turned into a “did”. And from what I have heard from doctors and nurses who worked in the department of health, his cuts did not do as you suggested. His cuts made it so people where less likely to get the preventive care they needed. They are the experts, we should be listening to them.
” But of course you don’t acknowledge any of that because you don’t really care about details. ”
Of course I care about the details! You are saying “might” and “maybe”. I am refering to what ACTUALLY happened.
“You’re more concerned with manufacturing a headline out of incomplete facts. If not, then why would you entitle this article in the way you did?”
I titled the article in the way I did to capture the reader and get them to read more! If you read the article (which it really doesn’t look like you have) you would see that I NEVER suggested that Jindal was guilty of fraud or abuse. What I said was Jindal’s defense was eliminating fraud an abuse. Of course, people like you dont care about what is actually written. You just deal with “might” and “maybe” and make false assumptions about the meaning of the title without reading the entire post.
“You even admit that his cuts did in fact eliminate “fraud and abuse.” What’s so bad about that?”
I KNOW I DID. So obviously I did not mean that he had anything to do with fraud and abuse! Nothing is wrong with eliminating fraud and abuse. The problem is that he uses the “eliminating fraud and abuse” line as a defense for his $200 million cuts in service and I am saying that if you are eliminating fraud and abuse and that elimination of fraud and abuse causes a $200 million surplus there should be NO cuts in service because you will be running the SAME services more efficiently. So there HAD to have been more to the cuts than just fraud and abuse. And those cuts beyond the break even point where irresponsible! It is just another example of the Jindal spin machine.
“Just throw as much crap out there, hope that the people reading this site are as unscrupulous as yourself and the refinery janitor, and pray that it sticks. ”
You just think it is crap because you have something against me personally. You wouldn’t complement me if it you got paid to do so. You just have some personal vendetta against me. Of course, you wont come out and say who you are and why that is. Perhaps I could respect you a little bit if you did that. I doubt you, like Jindal when he ducks debates, have the spine to step forward and show everyone who you really are.
“I’ve been to that dump of a sushi bar that you were raving about. Buffet sushi is never good sushi unless you are inhaling 40 rolls per sitting, which undoubtedly you are. ”
As I said, it is “good buffet sushi”. I qualified it by putting “buffet” in the middle. OF COURSE buffet sushi is NEVER as good as sushi from a good sushi place. Again, you dont read. If you paid attention, attention would be broke.
Id say I eat about 10-12 peices of assorted sushi, a big pile of sashimi, a plate full of shrimp and beef cooked on the hibatchi, some crab legs (if they look good) and sometimes some tempura. (Since for some reason you seem to be obsessed with my weight and what I eat.)
You either run an “anti” website or you are paid to sit on it 24-7 and do someone else’s attacking. It is hilarious how you attempted to minimize your choice of misrepresented title. I looked for where you were going to show that Jindal perpetrated “fraud and abuse” in DHH when he was there, but, not surprisingly, I didn’t find anything like that. Just one big policy critique over whether 200 million should have been dumped into the public health sector. You’re not attempting to write fiction (although it appears that is what you are best at), so why try to “capture” the reader with some tabloidesque headline? The readers are already here waiting for you to prove that Jindal is bad somehow. Instead, you give more opinions that you think prove your thesis, but reasonable and objective (those are the key words, Dan) people don’t agree with you…at this point. I am waiting for you to show me that Jindal is bad because I don’t think nor do I want to think he is as great as some make him out to be.
To address some of the dull points in your retort:
First of all, the secretary of DHH is not required to be a doctor. He or she is a political appointee appointed to administer the division as a bureaucrat. Your stupid assertion that he was there to “administer health care” is a highly simplistic misunderstanding of the possition, but I do realize that you must believe that was what his job was for your argument to make any sense to you and other hacks/refinery janitors whatsoever. Prior to his being appointed DHH secretary, that division was the biggest leach on the public trough. What made it that way was our Huey Longish, antiquated model of providing indigent healthcare in this state. We ran clinics, whereas 49 other states outsourced to a more efficient and productive private sector.
I really don’t know if you are just a simple idiot, or if your motivations are more sinister, but it does say a lot about you that you think that just because a sum of money was “budgeted” means it must or should be spent. God forbid there be a more efficient method out there or not as many people that were planed to get sick actually got sick and demanded services, damnit, the money was budgeted, so in Dan Zimmerman’s world it shall be spent. The way I understood Jindal’s DHH reforms was to consolidate public care and move more care to the private sector through public insurance programs and rural grants. You fail to take any of that into account in lambasting him for not spending money that you think should have been spent.
Now back to those pesky facts I ask you about. Let me remind you that you are the resident storyteller on the “Jindal is Bad” website, so the burden of proving Jindal is bad falls on you. If you can show where those 200 million cuts actually caused sickness to get out of control, unreasonable deaths, or numbers of people contracting communicable diseases as a result of not having access to a free clinic, then you might have a point. But, as usual, you provide nothing but misrepresented titles aimed for the sheepish mind.
There has been no evidence that anything Jindal did at DHH caused a health crisis in this state. If there is any evidence, please post it for all to see. Until then, I look forward to more of your unenlightened banter and misleading statements.
“It is hilarious how you attempted to minimize your choice of misrepresented title. I looked for where you were going to show that Jindal perpetrated “fraud and abuse” in DHH when he was there, but, not surprisingly, I didn’t find anything like that.”
You looked wrong. Don’t blame me because you jumped to conclusions! If you read the article you would see where I was going with that title. Jindal is using “fraud and abuse” as the excuse for his cuts and I am calling him on it.
“Just one big policy critique over whether 200 million should have been dumped into the public health sector. ”
Newsflash, it was already in the public health sector. It was money that was SUPPOSED to be spend on healthcare but wasnt.
“You’re not attempting to write fiction (although it appears that is what you are best at), so why try to “capture” the reader with some tabloidesque headline? ”
EVERYONE who writes articles tries to capture the reader with a headline! Are you insane? And no, its not “tabloidesque”. The article deals with fraud and abuse AND it explains what I meant when I used those words in the title. The fact that YOU jump to conclusions is not MY fault.
“I really don’t know if you are just a simple idiot, or if your motivations are more sinister, but it does say a lot about you that you think that just because a sum of money was “budgeted” means it must or should be spent.”
The legislature made the budgetary decision to fund the department with X amount of dollars. The govenment felt that it was important to have X amount of dollars worth of care. Now, if Jindal was able to provide the SAME amount of care for people under the public health system and do so at a decreased cost to the taxpayers then I would be singing his praises. However, he did not do that. He did not make healthcare more efficient, he was just a hatchet man who cut services to people who needed it.
“God forbid there be a more efficient method out there or not as many people that were planed to get sick actually got sick and demanded services, damnit, the money was budgeted, so in Dan Zimmerman’s world it shall be spent.”
Wrong. Don’t put words in my mouth. He did NOT provide a more efficient method to provide services. He just ELIMINATED services. There is a difference.
“The way I understood Jindal’s DHH reforms was to consolidate public care and move more care to the private sector through public insurance programs and rural grants.”
You understood wrong. He did no such thing. Maybe that was his intent, however he did not follow through and people who lived in the areas where he shut down clinics suffered because they where no longer able to get the care they needed.
“You fail to take any of that into account in lambasting him for not spending money that you think should have been spent.”
I dont take that into consideration because he didnt do it!
“Now back to those pesky facts I ask you about. Let me remind you that you are the resident storyteller on the “Jindal is Bad” website, so the burden of proving Jindal is bad falls on you. ”
I am the one who blogs the most so yes, I will accept that the burden of proof falls to me.
” If you can show where those 200 million cuts actually caused sickness to get out of control, unreasonable deaths, or numbers of people contracting communicable diseases as a result of not having access to a free clinic, then you might have a point. But, as usual, you provide nothing but misrepresented titles aimed for the sheepish mind.”
It doesn’t take a rhodes scholar to realize that closing clinics and eliminating health services for people who cannot afford it is going to have a negative effect on those people who used to get those services. Only the sheepish mind would just believe Jindal when he promotes his own record.
“There has been no evidence that anything Jindal did at DHH caused a health crisis in this state. If there is any evidence, please post it for all to see. Until then, I look forward to more of your unenlightened banter and misleading statements. ”
Anyone who remembers the status of the louisiana department of health before Katrina will know that his cuts did not have a positive long lasting effect on the system.
There is NO evidence to show that his cuts did ANY good. That in and of itself should say something about his lack of accomplishments at the Louisiana Department of Health.
I dont recall using the term “health crisis” did I? So why would you ask me to prove a “health crisis”.
JINDAL is standing on his record on what he did. HE defends his actions as eliminating waste and fraud. THAT explaination doesn’t pass muster because elimination of fraud and waste would not lead to a cutting of services (something he DID do). Or do you dispute the fact that he cut services and clinics as well because I havn’t provided a link to it?
And come on, keep relying on your insults and in your attempts to discredit me It is truely pathetic and shows that your motivation is not to inform but to attack.
Dan, my intent is to find the facts so that if Jindal is in fact bad it can be well known and published. But what you’ve got here (so far) is the pathetic ranting of a partisan sore loser, not a compilation of facts proving Jindal is a bad human being who operates in bad faith.
You have provided no evidence that the budget cuts made by Jindal lead to a diminuition of health care services. Of course they may have resulted in less public-provided care, but that does not mean that available care itself somehow evaporated into the ether. That is your implication and without objective evidence to prove that those cuts were correlative to people actually going without care to their detriment, you’re not advancing your cause of proving Jindal is bad one bit. I’m sorry, but objective minds do not want to rely on alleged conversations you had with alleged doctors who depended on DHH to pay their salaries and who could have been adversely affected by Jindal’s move, thus having an axe to grind. Where’s the data proving your assertions, Dan? Show me where people actually suffered because of these cuts.
You are way too focused on linking the non-presence of public health services to the lack of health services period. Maybe you slept through your civics class in high school, but the executive branch of government carries out the laws of the legislative branch. Jindal as DHH secretary was implementing a policy of the Foster Administration to cut duplicitous spending and “fraud and waste” in the department, which ran rampant after 16 years of your Democrat comrade in arms, Fast Eddie Edwards. You keep relying on as true the fact that just because cuts were made that actual services lessened. Again, try not to confuse the elimination of duplicitious services or staff with the elimination of ACTUAL services that got to the people. I remember when these cuts were made and the issue of them during the 2003 election. Some reporters for the Advocate looked into claims strikingly similar to yours and found them to be unproved and lacking any merit. If you find to the contrary, please publish links to objective reporting on the issue. Please, don’t regale us with anymore alleged conversations that the objective Dan Zimmerman, amateur journalist, had with alleged doctors. Because if that is all you have to fall on, your website is the worthless banter of a sore loser, not a portal for facts showing the world that Bobby Jindal is in fact a bad person.
Of course you have policy disagreements with Jindal and his decisions at DHH, and that is your right. But because he would rely on the private sector, whereas you seem to think that government must touch everything for anything to be ok, that doesn’t make him a bad person. The whole demagogery thing you are trying to do here is having no effect the way you are doing it. Reasonable persons may disagree on the wisdom of a course of action, but to demonize such a course as making someone bad only rings true to partisan hacks such as yourself Daniel.
Now, put down that Crossandwich and hash browns and go find some evidence of Jindal being bad before he waltzes into the governor’s mansion unopposed!
“Dan, my intent is to find the facts so that if Jindal is in fact bad it can be well known and published.”
As is mine.
“But what you’ve got here (so far) is the pathetic ranting of a partisan sore loser, not a compilation of facts proving Jindal is a bad human being who operates in bad faith.”
Im not out to prove that Bobby Jindal is a “bad human being”. I am just out to prove that Bobby Jindal is a “bad choice for governor”.
“You have provided no evidence that the budget cuts made by Jindal lead to a diminuition of health care services.”
Many of my opinions have been formed by having conversations with people who worked within the Louisiana Department of health before, during and after Jindal’s tenure there. Since I did not record those conversations you will just have to take my word on what was said about them.
What I try and do with many of my posts is try and give people an argument from the other side. I try and give people another way to look at things. Perhaps they may realize that cutting 200 million in services may not have been the best decision. Then they, as responsible voters, can do some of their own legwork and research and find out other information for themselves.
And in reallity, it is common sense that dictates reducing 200 million in services and closing clinics that people rely on will have a negative effect on those people who rely on the system.
“I’m sorry, but objective minds do not want to rely on alleged conversations you had with alleged doctors who depended on DHH to pay their salaries and who could have been adversely affected by Jindal’s move, thus having an axe to grind. ”
Objective minds would realize that Jindal’s claim that his elimination of fraud and abuse in the system would not have required him to shut down clinics and eliminate services (as he claimed in the article I linked to). This is why I posted the thread, to point out that his excuse does not hold water.
“You are way too focused on linking the non-presence of public health services to the lack of health services period.”
Not what Im doing. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. And you should know that putting words in my mouth is futile because it is already filled with food!
“Maybe you slept through your civics class in high school, but the executive branch of government carries out the laws of the legislative branch. Jindal as DHH secretary was implementing a policy of the Foster Administration to cut duplicitous spending and “fraud and waste” in the department, which ran rampant after 16 years of your Democrat comrade in arms, Fast Eddie Edwards. ”
The legislative branch passed a budget that sought to provide X worth of dollars in healthcare.. not X minus 200 million. I have no problem with Jindal cutting fraud, waste and abuse. What I have a problem with is him using that as an excuse as to why 200 million in services where cut. Cutting fraud, waste and abuse would just mean that the current services that are provided would be provided in a more efficient manner and there would be no need to cut anymore.
And by the way, I have said many times that I hope fast eddie rots in Jail for what he did to this state. Just goes to show, again, how little you know about me.
“Of course you have policy disagreements with Jindal and his decisions at DHH, and that is your right. But because he would rely on the private sector, whereas you seem to think that government must touch everything for anything to be ok, that doesn’t make him a bad person. ”
Again, you are trying to put words into my already full mouth. I do not think that government needs to touch everything. I am for SMALLER GOVERNMENT and REDUCED SPENDING. I said as much in my 2004 campaign for Congress. I said as much when I ran for Kenner Council. Again, if you paid attention, attention would be broke.
Jindal may be a wonderful husband, a terrific father, and a good Christian. However, as a choice for Governor Bobby Jindal is Bad.
“Now, put down that Crossandwich and hash browns and go find some evidence of Jindal being bad before he waltzes into the governor’s mansion unopposed!”
That shows how much you know. I had french toast and eggs for breakfast.
Dan, that’s exactly what you’re doing. Just because a service may not be available through the public sector doesn’t mean that the service was not available through other means. You are trying to have us believe that Jindal is evil and he kept dyalisis machines from running (a favorite EWE tactic to strong-arm legislators into going along with his crap) by making budget cuts. But you have proven no facts that anybody went without. Where is the data that backs up that claim?
If you are for smaller government and reduced spending, then how come you are short-sightedly bemoaning the fact that 200 million was not spent by DHH and yet there was no health care crisis or outbreak of disease that is attributable to that? Doesn’t that at the very least imply that affected persons actually got their needed care elsewhere through other non-public means? So you are left with 200 million of taxpayer savings and nobody is sick on the street. Should be a win/win, Dan. All I’m looking for is evidence that it was not “win/win.” If you can prove that those cuts lead to some sort of public health crisis in this state, then please post the data. Relying on the statement that “the legislature appropriated y million, not x minus y million” to justify your argument that the 200 million cuts were inherently bad is pretty lame, not to mention illogical. Until then, I’m going to err on the side that all of this is much ado about nothing, but I am willing to be proved wrong.
“Just because a service may not be available through the public sector doesn’t mean that the service was not available through other means. ”
Trotsky, there is no reason to believe that the services was available for those patients who lost their services by the Jindal cuts.
“You are trying to have us believe that Jindal is evil and he kept dyalisis machines from running (a favorite EWE tactic to strong-arm legislators into going along with his crap) by making budget cuts.”
Where did I mention dialysis machines?
“If you are for smaller government and reduced spending, then how come you are short-sightedly bemoaning the fact that 200 million was not spent by DHH and yet there was no health care crisis or outbreak of disease that is attributable to that?”
The system was already in a crisis when Jindal took over.
http://www.ldi.state.la.us/consumers/LIRC/Archives/updatefall96.htm#art6
The system was in a crisis in 1999 after he left.
http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/miscdocs/docs-275/recordsstatistics/statistics/docs/reportcards/2000/V.%20Louisiana%20State%20Health%20Care%20System.doc
Louisiana was ranked 50th (ie dead last) when it came to healthiest states. In fact, if you look at the study, you will see that Louisiana’s ranking FELL over the years that Jindal was in control. See this quote from the beginning of that article.
“A 1999 national report by ReliaStar Financial, formerly Northwestern National Life, shows Louisiana at the bottom of the list of healthiest states. Louisiana’s 50th ranking is similar to its ranking of 48th and 49th the last two years. ”
Since Jindal was in control from 1996 to 1998, after one year of Jindal being in service Louisiana ranked 48th nationwide. After two years of Jindal being in service, Louisiana ranked 49th nationwide, and a year after he left, Louisiana continued to drop to 50th. Doesn’t seem to me that Jindal’s “administrative skills” helped Louisiana’s healthcare problems. (And if you note, this is posted on dhh.louisiana.gov)
Read this quote from the study.
“A major explanation for Louisiana’s poor health status is the lack of access to routine and preventive health care. In Health Care State Rankings for 1999 , Louisiana ranked 50th, worst in the nation in health indicators.”
Hmmm, a lack of preventive health care. I wonder what might have caused that? Surely closing clinics didn’t help.
According to the study, listed on the department of health website; “Lack of access to appropriate care in their communities is resulting in many ill persons becoming patients at state hospitals. These same individuals could be served better if there were more outpatient primary care facilities available and accessible in their own areas. ”
So in 1999, the suggested solution to fix the problem would be to OPEN outpatient primary care facilities that would be accessable to people. What did Jindal do from 96 to 98? He closed them. Seems that Bobby Jindal was doing the exact opposite of what needed to be done.
“Dan. All I’m looking for is evidence that it was not “win/win.” ”
See above.
“If you can prove that those cuts lead to some sort of public health crisis in this state, then please post the data.”
They didn’t lead to a crisis since one already existed when Jindal took over. However, since the steps he took being in 1996-1998 where the exact opposite of the solution provided in 1999, it sure seems like he helped to make the existing public health crisis worse.
“Until then, I’m going to err on the side that all of this is much ado about nothing, but I am willing to be proved wrong. ”
To sum up. During Jindals tenure, the state dropped from 48th to 49th and the fall continued to the next year where we hit rock bottom. The suggested solution that was proposed in 1999 was to do the exact opposite of Jindals solution of cutting clinics and services. According to a graph later in the report, Louisiana was first (ie worst) in the nation when it came to lack of access to primary care in 1998 with a whopping 24% of the population lacking said access. And if you look at the last graph on that report, you will see how many areas are underserved when it comes to medical care.
So, do you believe that I proved you wrong? Or do I need to find more?
You’re on the right track, Dan, finally. Keep it up.
Now to address the “data” that you provided. Again, it fails to take into account expanded access to private health providers through programs such as LaCHIP. The crux behind closing public clinics was to pull Louisiana into the 21st century and get the state out of the business of managing healthcare. I still stupulate that the fact that there is no evidence of any real healthcare crisis that affected people here in Louisiana. There was a “crisis” in state healthcare workers who may have lost cushy jobs. There may be a “crisis” in the eyes of DHH bureaucrats who view anything less than full control of public health in this state as a “crisis for their agency.” But I’m talking about a “crisis” that affected people in terms of preventing them from getting the treatment that they needed. It is not a crisis that they may have to drive greater distances to get it. That is a convienence. I still see no evidence that people died or became sick as a result of Jindal’s budget cuts. Now if you can prove that, then you may be going somewhere with this, but until then…keep eating that buffet sushi!
“You’re on the right track, Dan, finally. Keep it up.”
I have always been on the right track. You just assumed bad faith on my part because you believe I have some sort of vendetta against Jindal because I lost to him. The reallity is that i knew going into the election that Jindal would probably win and since I knew that going in, I have no reason to be bitter about it when it came true.
“Again, it fails to take into account expanded access to private health providers through programs such as LaCHIP. ”
The report discusses the fact that Louisiana as a whole ranked 50th in healthcare after Jindals tenure. That would include any expanded access to private health providers. And LaCHIP begain in 1998 http://www.lsuhospitals.org/Media-Relations/InTheNews/04.18.07.pdf (the year Jindal left) so why are you even bringing that up as relevant to the discussion on Jindal’s record?
“The crux behind closing public clinics was to pull Louisiana into the 21st century and get the state out of the business of managing healthcare.”
Where has Jindal stated that it was his job as head of the DHH to remove the state out of the business of managing healthcare. As I have said previously, we can have the discussion on whether or not the state should play a role in the management of healthcare services but that discussion has nothing to do with whether Jindal did a good job as head of the DHH.
“I still stupulate that the fact that there is no evidence of any real healthcare crisis that affected people here in Louisiana. ”
So the fact that we ranked 48th in 1997, 49th in 1998, and 50th in 1999 doesn’t tell you that there was a healhcare crisis going on?
“There was a “crisis” in state healthcare workers who may have lost cushy jobs. ”
If that was part of his eliminating fraud and abuse, then that is fine. However, while elminating fraud and abuse he would not need to eliminate services since again, eliminating fraud and abuse would make it possible for the same services to be provided at a cheaper rate.
“But I’m talking about a “crisis” that affected people in terms of preventing them from getting the treatment that they needed.”
And while Jindal was head of the department, our statemoved from 2nd to last to dead last on healthcare. Bobby Jindal led us to a point where we ranked worst when it came to availability to primary care. If we rank last in availability to primary care, then wouldn’t that mean that patients are not getting the treatment they need?
“It is not a crisis that they may have to drive greater distances to get it. That is a convienence.”
If the greater distance makes the healthcare inaccessable then it is absolutely a reason for the health crisis and the paper clearly states that it is one of the reasons why we ranked dead last in healthcare immediately after Jindal left and why during Jindals tenure our healthcare rating dropped.
“I still see no evidence that people died or became sick as a result of Jindal’s budget cuts. Now if you can prove that, then you may be going somewhere with this,”
Ive already gone somewhere with this. I have shown why cutting 200 million was a poor administrative choice.
I have shown that the excuse of cutting fraud and abuse does not hold water when he uses it to explain why services where cut. Cutting fraud and abuse is good. But cutting fraud and abuse does not explain why services where cut when those services SHOULD have been provided at a cheaper rate!
I have shown that Louisiana’s health ranking dropped during his tenure and that his policies moved us to dead last in the nation when it comes to healthcare.
I have shown that the solution to the health problems that the DHH stated would be to open clinics and make primary care available and accessable (the exact opposite of what Jindal did).
Each time I find new information, will you ask for more? When can I expect you to just say “yes Dan you are right and Bobby Jindal’s record at the Louisiana Department of Health did not improve our healthcare situation in Louisiana and he is misleading the people on how good of a job he did there”? Will you ever?
“keep eating that buffet sushi! ”
I will probably go this weekend! Im glad you care.
Dan, you’re manufacturing a “crisis” out of thin air. To you, who believes that the public sector should be in the business of providing health care, then surely there was a crisis when the state agency lost 200 million. All I’m trying to say is that simply because DHH had its budget cut by 200 million doesn’t mean that there was a healthcare “crisis” in terms of people getting sick or dying as a result of these cuts. You’ve failed to show that anyone died or became sick as a result of those cuts, leading reasonable minds to conclude that either: a) private health care providers provided care, or b) there was really no medical need for the 200 million that was cut. You’ve posted a few links since I started pestering you to provide some facts, but none of those links proved that anyone suffered illness or death from the act of cutting the DHH budget. That would be a healthcare “crisis” if it in fact did turn out that way, but trying to argue that a few custodians or file clerks in the Bunkie health unit losing their jobs because of the cuts is a “crisis” is ludicrous.
You are harping on the statistics that showed Louisiana to have been second to last and last during Jindal’s tenure as DHH secretary. Your folly is to take those numbers in isolation. There are so many other factors that contribute to that statistic other than who is the head of the department at any one given moment in time. For instance, we have one of the lowest educational levels per capita, which translates into greater poverty rates, which translates into poorer diet and nutritional habits, which translates into more chronic and acute illinesses.
Don’t think I didn’t notice your quick dismissal of publicly-subsidized insurance programs, such as LaCHIP. For starters, it is relevant to Jindal’s tenure because its idea came into fruition due to the Foster Administration’s attempt to wean our indigent population away from public health facilities and to encourage the use of private healthcare providers. The cuts were part of a overall package that went along with ideas such as LaCHIP. You can’t really discuss one without the other…unless you are a hack trying to score easy points with uninformed readers. By dismissing LaCHIP the way you do, you are failing to take into consideration that most medical expenses incurred come from the treatment of pediatrics and geriatrics. LaCHIP eliminated most all of the demand for public health services for children and Medicare does the same for older folks. So, without the need to provide primary pediatric care, large cuts could be made without the impairment of actual services. I realize you don’t see this because you can’t get past the fact that the public sector is no longer providing certain services they once did. But just know that the private sector is, thus nobody went without, despite your desire to have us believe otherwise.
And the role that the public sector plays in providing healthcare is relevant to this discussion because if you knew anything about the intentions of the Foster Administration other than what fellow partisan hacks supply you with you would know that the primary reason for the cuts you bemoan and the passage of the LaCHIP program was a philosophical belief that the role of the state government should not encompass the direct provision of healthcare services. Your insistance to overlook factors such as these in formulating your evidence of Jindal’s badness only proves that you are more interested in grinding your axe than to uncovering any facts or truths that would lead reasonable persons to conclude that Jindal is a bad choice for governor.
Granted by eliminating a good bit of demand, random parish health clinics were going to be little used, leading to a cost/benefit analysis done on their utility under a more modernized model of administering public health. Some closed, I’ll give you that, but that in and of itself does not make a “crisis.” Because some needless state employees lost jobs or because some middle-aged lardos like yourself must now drive somewhere to get non-emergency, non-life threatening care does not make a “crisis.”
“Dan, you’re manufacturing a “crisis” out of thin air.”
Errr, no im not. Did you read this link. http://www.ldi.state.la.us/consumers/LIRC/Archives/updatefall96.htm#art6
“Another area he called on the committee to address was the Medicaid crisis with emphasis on coverage for the working poor and the present cuts by the Department of Health and Hospitals.
Brown said, “The state should be coordinating private medical insurance and government subsidized Medicare and Medicaid in terms of regulation, licensing, complaints and benefits offered. We need to emphasize dialogue between our Department and DHH because of the common ground we share.”
Commissioner Brown suggested inviting Bobby Jindal, Secretary of the DHH, or his designee, to attend all future Health Care Commission meetings. The Commission then passed a resolution encouraging interaction between the two departments to reconstruct the Medicaid program in Louisiana.”
Seems like there was a CRISIS back then. Not my words.
“To you, who believes that the public sector should be in the business of providing health care, then surely there was a crisis when the state agency lost 200 million. ”
Actually, to someone else, Jindal’s cuts where not dealing with the existing crisis that existd before Jindal took office.
Even Bobby JIndal says it in the first link I provided in this thread.
“Eight years ago, when I took over health and hospitals, so many political experts said we won’t be able to rescue the Medicaid program, we won’t be able to rescue our state’s health care program.” Seems to me that if it needed rescuing, that there was a crisis. Unfortunately for the State, Jindal didnt fix anything for the reasons listed above.
“All I’m trying to say is that simply because DHH had its budget cut by 200 million doesn’t mean that there was a healthcare “crisis” in terms of people getting sick or dying as a result of these cuts. ”
You are trying to erect a strawman and it wont work. You can keep defining and redefining what I am trying to say about Jindal but it just wont fly.
“You’ve failed to show that anyone died or became sick as a result of those cuts, leading reasonable minds to conclude that either: a) private health care providers provided care, or b) there was really no medical need for the 200 million that was cut. ”
It is very probably that they EVENTUALLY got medical care because they eventually went to a hospital if it got BAD enough. But when you let problems get THAT BAD, they are much more expensive to treat. And who pays for them? WE DO! Why? Because hospitals cannot reject people in an emergency so they have to shift the burdon to their paying customers.
I am not sure if the data you are expecting me to provide exists. However, it is clear that in 1999, the study I quoted stated that what was needed to fix the problem was MORE public health clinics to make PRIMARY care more accessable. If it that was the solution to make the system BETTER, then obviously Jindal closing those clinics made the situation worse.
“argue that a few custodians or file clerks in the Bunkie health unit losing their jobs because of the cuts is a “crisis” is ludicrous.”
Never have I (or would I) argue that. Again, you are erecting a strawman.
“Don’t think I didn’t notice your quick dismissal of publicly-subsidized insurance programs, such as LaCHIP.”
I didn’t dismiss them out of hand. I provided you the link that showed LaCHIP started as Jindal was going out the door. So how LaCHIP effected Louisiana health care has nothing to do with the Jindal cuts.
” For starters, it is relevant to Jindal’s tenure because its idea came into fruition due to the Foster Administration’s attempt to wean our indigent population away from public health facilities and to encourage the use of private healthcare providers. ”
It started in 1998. Jindal left in 1998. Jindal’s cuts from the years prior had NOTHING to do with LaCHIP.
“You can’t really discuss one without the other…unless you are a hack trying to score easy points with uninformed readers. ”
Of course I can discuss one without the other without being a hack! Jindal’s cuts in 1996 have nothing to do with the LaCHIP program that started in 1998. Period!
” LaCHIP eliminated most all of the demand for public health services for children”
And since LaCHIP was implemented in 1998, and Jindal left in 1998, it has nothing to do with the cuts Jindal made.
Of course, you berate me for not citing my sources but I dont see you backing up your claims with any links to articles showing that Jindals cuts where mainly in child healthcare services that would have been duplicated by LaChip.
Ill be waiting. If you dont back up your claims then you will show yourself to be a hypocrite.
“I realize you don’t see this because you can’t get past the fact that the public sector is no longer providing certain services they once did. But just know that the private sector is, thus nobody went without, despite your desire to have us believe otherwise.”
Again, putting words in my mouth. Again with the strawman.
“And the role that the public sector plays in providing healthcare is relevant to this discussion because if you knew anything about the intentions of the Foster Administration other than what fellow partisan hacks supply you with you would know that the primary reason for the cuts you bemoan and the passage of the LaCHIP program was a philosophical belief that the role of the state government should not encompass the direct provision of healthcare services. Your insistance to overlook factors such as these in formulating your evidence of Jindal’s badness only proves that you are more interested in grinding your axe than to uncovering any facts or truths that would lead reasonable persons to conclude that Jindal is a bad choice for governor.”
If government can find a way to make healthcare more affordable, more accessable, and more efficient by utlizing the private sector I have absolutely ZERO problems with it. I know you are shocked, but you have already shown that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about my personal politics and what I would like to see from government. Im for less taxes, less government spending, and less waste. If the goverment can do a better job at something, then let it. If the government can do a a beter job providing something by letting a private industry taking care of it then do that!
However, when making any transition between public and private, you have to be careful to do so without hurting people. IF the Foster administration was actually intending on moving services from public to private, they would have the RESPOSIBILITY to make it as seemless as possible without causing people to lose benefits in the process. But that didnt happen. Clinics where shut down and services where taken away. And according to the study I posted, Jindal served from 96-98. In 1997 (year 1 of Jindal) we where ranked 48th in health care nationwide. In 1998 (year 2 of Jindal) we dropped to 49th. And after the Jindal tenure was up, and im sure his policies where still in place and the effects of his cuts where still having an effect, we dropped to 50th. Dead last.
How you can suggest that we dropped to dead last on healthcare nationwide but I havn’t shown that people where hurt by his cuts is absurd and laughable! There is obviously a reason why we dropped, and its not because patients got better! If patients had gotten better, received better services, and gotten those services more efficiently through private providers…. we would have ROSE in the the standings and not fallen. It is as simple as that. If you want to remain willfully ignorant of that fact then I have no futher reason to discuss this issue with you further.
It is plain and simple for all to see. Jindal stands on his healthcare administration record because he claims he did a good job. Leading our state heathcare system to be the absolute worst in the nation (when we where not the worst before Jindal) is NOT doing a good job. Period.
His solutions included closing clinics and making healthcare less accessable. The solution provided for in the paper clearly states that the way to better our health standings nationwide would be to OPEN clinics and make healthcare more accessable. Jindal did the exact opposite of what was needed. This means he was not a good administrator. Period.
Now, unless you have anything constructive to say and can do so without putting words in my mouth, I am done with you. I have proven my point. Good night sir.
You see ,Jindal will outlaw abortion to get your votes then he will turn around and kill babies for profits.
Thanks to Jindal the Baby Killer for this!!!
Why Sicko is a movie that every american should see. If you don’t believe that Jindal is a tool being used to destroy healthcare in this state and country than you are very niave person!!!
Why Every american should see sicko
Here is taste:
continue reading here: http://www.newstarget.com/021906.html
Well, the thing is, you haven’t come close to proving your point to reasonable people. Hacks like yourself are fine to cherry-pick data and interpret them selectively as to be a “self-fulfilling prophecy.” But only hacks that are idiots would be dumb enough to believe their spin, which is the trap you have obviously fallen into.
For there to have been a “crisis” there would have needed to be dregs of sick and dying people going without healthcare in this state. For that “crisis” to have been Jindal’s fault as you are trying to paint it, then you have to show that his cuts resulted in increased sick people going without needed care and people dying as a result of lack of access to care. You would also have to show that the closing of clinics actually resulted in less or no access to care. But you have provided NO EVIDENCE of either of those possible outcomes. Closing a few clinics that saw relatively few patients in the first place and laying off clinic support staff does NOT MAKE A CRISIS.
Not stop eating, fat ass, and go make this website something other than a tabloid!
Im not BLAMING the crisis on Jindal. I am saying that Jindal claimed to have done a great job and he claimed to have fixed the problems and that is a lie! He runs on misinformation. How can he claim to have fixed the healthcare system when Louisiana DROPPED from 48th to 50th in ranking of healthcare.
You are not the voice of reasonable people. Reasonable people do not try and erect strawmen in order to tear them down.
Just because YOU limit what YOU would call a crisis does not mean that YOU are correct. I showed where OTHERS said there was a crisis and I have proven that Jindal did not do anything to fix that crisis and he, in fact, made it worse by “leading” our state to the worst ranking nationally in healthcare.
It is clear that you have no intent actually listen to logic and reason though. You are just here to attack and insult (and stupidly so because as you have seen, I joke about my own weight) and not to inform anyone.
As I said, if you dont have anything constructive to say I will be done with you. Good day sir.
You have proven that Jindal does not care about the Health Care of louisiana Citizens. My guess is that some private insureres or hospitals profits went up. Just like in the movie Sicko. Jindal got is marching orders on those cuts from his party. It was no self act of genius as all the spin about him keeps getting proved to be just that spin. Papers painted his “new plan” to keep drug dealers out of public housing as revolutionary while totally ignoring the fact that those laws were already on the books. It was nothing but spin. When he missed the meeting with FEMA they put out more spin about him doing something about the FEMA trailers. What ever happened to that? Any politician can write a letter and demand anything. It is results that count in the end and so far the results of Jindal’s actions have had no proven benefits for us. It all spin. Take the spin away and Jindal is nothing but a baby killer!
He is also a pedophile enabler! The GOP Grand Ole Pedophiles. Why is that party so full of pedophiles? Becuase of votes like Jindal’s! Their business is protecting profits and pedophiles!
Actually Dan, you are blaming the crisis on Jindal. This whole website exists to try to discredit Jindal in any way possible and your latest attempt is in manufacturing a healthcare “crisis” that allegedly existed as a result of the 200 million in cuts that were made during his tenure at DHH. It is hysterical that you are now saying that you are not “blaming” the alleged “crisis” on Jindal.
Have you taken into consideration the fact that our horribly antiquated and inefficient public health administration model with clinics and big charity hospitals may be the cause of our dysmal rankings now and back then when Jindal was head of DHH? I know something like that doesn’t bode well for your theory that Jindal is the arbiter of everything bad, so I’m not surprised that a hack such as yourself cherry-picks your data in a weak effort to persuade third persons.
I dont know why I keep responding to you. Perhaps I am a glutton for punishment, among other things.
This website exists to counter the spin that is put forward by the Jindal campaign. The Jindal campaign states that Jindal did a wonderful job saving the Department of Health (which contradicts your claim of a lack of crisis, they just believe the crisis was over when Jindal got through with it). In reallity, Jindal’s “leadership” brought us from 48th in the nation to 50th in the nation when it comes to healthcare.
You cannot say that his solutions made things better when the FACTS show that things got worse for us with Jindal at the head of the department. You cannot say that his solutions where good when the solution to get Louisiana up from 50th was to open more rural clinics so people can have access to primary care.
When the study states that one of the reasons the healthcare system was failing the citizens of Louisiana was because there was a lack of clinics and Jindal, during his tenure, shut down clinics…. it is pretty safe to say that Jindal’s cuts did not “save” the system as his supporters like to suggest. It is pretty clear that his solutions went against what was needed to lift us from the bottom of the barrel when it comes to our national health care ranking.
Could our healthcare system be improved with a different model? Sure! Im open to that! However, Jindal’s “model” only worked to move us from 48th to 50th in the nation. How many times does that need to be repeated before it sinks in?
I have backed up my arguments with sources. I have shown that Jindals cuts where not what was needed to save the healthcare system of Louisiana. I have shown that Jindals administrative “skills” brought us from 48th to 50th in healthcare nationally. I have shown that Jindals explanation of why he got the surplus is illogical (since eliminating fraud and waste would not lead to a cutback in services).
You are the one who is bringing up “might” and “may” situations with no facts to back up why your defense of the Jindal record should hold any water. And to top it all off, you resort to insults like a child. If anyone is a hack it is clearly you. Good day.
Elimintate fraud waste and abuse. Is it not a waste to give healthcare to poor people? Is it a waste to save human lives?
Some people seem to think so.
You are surely a glutton alright…
You stated: “You cannot say that his solutions made things better when the FACTS show that things got worse for us with Jindal at the head of the department. You cannot say that his solutions where good when the solution to get Louisiana up from 50th was to open more rural clinics so people can have access to primary care. ”
Dan, YOUR PERCEIVED solution was to have him open more rural clinics. You are neglecting to recognize that there were other possible solutions to better serve the needs of indigent healthcare, such as public-subsidized private insurance coverage or purely public insurance coverage. Once the “fraud and abuse” was eliminated, there was obviously no need to spend 200 million dollars or else you would have seen a clamor for healthcare services that just didn’t happen. The point is that people still got the care they needed, plus 200 million was saved, plus that was one step in the right direction in getting the state out of the business of directly providing healthcare.
You stated: “When the study states that one of the reasons the healthcare system was failing the citizens of Louisiana was because there was a lack of clinics and Jindal, during his tenure, shut down clinics…. it is pretty safe to say that Jindal’s cuts did not “save” the system as his supporters like to suggest. It is pretty clear that his solutions went against what was needed to lift us from the bottom of the barrel when it comes to our national health care ranking. ”
Dan that was ONE study done by DHH BUREAUCRATS. That was their conclusion based on a continued use of the antiquated, Huey Longish model of providing healthcare to indigent persons. Of course if you close down clinics and do nothing more to reform the system you would have a crisis, but the fact of the matter is that both useless clinics were shut down AND persons needing healthcare previously provided by those clinics went elsewhere to get services. That’s not a crisis…unless you are a DHH bureaucrat who has a vested interest in maintaining the agency’s status quo. Jindal and Foster wanted to completely revamp the way public healthcare was provided in this state by streamlining DHH and using the private sector more, as the 49 other states do.
You keep talking about this abysmal ranking of ours, but you fail each time to acknowledge that that ranking encompasses much more than simple direct healthcare provision statistics. It takes into account the method of provision and the structure within which the provision occurs. Our 1930s, Huey Long system was out of date by the 1960s and had huge overhead and inefficencies. And you want to manufacture a “crisis” out of thin air just because some systemic changes were made during a three year period in the late 1990s? Were you sweeping floors for some rural DHH clinic when it was shut down?
What you are is politically opposed to Jindal’s healthcare philosophy. That is alright, but to call him bad because the two of you disagree on the method of providing healthcare to indigent persons is idiotic and about what one should expect from some low-ranking political operative. Either find some evidence of people getting sick or dying because of the 200 million cuts or retract your inaccurate statements. I assumed that this website aimed to get at the truth of Jindal’s record (if that in fact does differ from his record as commonly understood), but all that’s here is the musings of a tool.
“You are surely a glutton alright…”
I guess you really dont know how to read, since I already made the joke when I said “among other things”.
“Dan, YOUR PERCEIVED solution was to have him open more rural clinics. ”
You really dont know how to read, since the article that I linked to was the one that suggested the solution was to open more rural clinics. So obviously it was not MY solution. Oh, President Bush said in his 2005 State of the Union address that more rural clinics needed to be opened.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050202-11.html
“To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage — (applause) — and more control over their health decisions. (Applause.) I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor county, improved information technology to prevent medical error and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees — (applause)”
I wonder if Jindal applauded that as well.
Ill skip the rest of your repeated garbage and go to your final paragraph.
“What you are is politically opposed to Jindal’s healthcare philosophy. That is alright, but to call him bad because the two of you disagree on the method of providing healthcare to indigent persons is idiotic and about what one should expect from some low-ranking political operative.”
I am opposed to Jindal’s healthcare solutions. It has nothing to do with politics. If a Democrat did the same thing, I would call the Democrat out on it as well.
I am calling him a bad choice for governor because of the many decisions he has made, the many positions he supports, and the many votes he has cast that do not favor the people of Louisiana.
You can erect all the strawmen you want. And you can keep tearing them down. It doesn’t make what you say true.
“Either find some evidence of people getting sick or dying because of the 200 million cuts or retract your inaccurate statements. ”
Us going from 48th to 50th is clearly evidence of people not getting the healthcare that they needed. The cutting of 200 in rural clinics was part of the Jindal solution on how to “fix” the department of health. And not only did the study linked to by the DHH state that rural areas need local clinics to provide primary care, the President also stated the exact same thing.
“I assumed that this website aimed to get at the truth of Jindal’s record ”
That is the aim, and that is what it is doing. The fact that you wont admit that what I am saying is truthful does not mean it is any less truthful. You are not the guardian of truth, far from it. The only thing you have gotten right in this whole conversation is that im fat! (And it doesn’t take much to notice that).
48th place out of 50? if we were 48th then why did we make so many cuts?