# Equality for All!!!



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

Equality for All
In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individuals medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors and nurses incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality | Foundation for Economic Education

The problems here should be self evident, if this is the utopia that you are seeking with "Universal Healthcare" then this is what you are going to get.  All statistics from the W.H.O. aside, when you look at Canda, the U.K. and several other countries with socialized medicine they all have one common theme. That theme is  more coverage less service. So if the goal here is to have a medical system that provides  poor quality medical care at the expense of covering everyone then that is what it will achieve.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Equality for All
> In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individuals medical expenses and health care.
> 
> With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors and nurses incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.
> ...



Of course.  Why would you look at statistics when you could just make pronouncements about things with no evidence backing it up?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

They only thing they never had shortages of was their only true free maket good, bootlegged vodka made from potatoes.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

I'd be happy too Nik , I have posted data on this  several times in the past and will be happy to post it here. I fail to see how I was making a pronouncement about things  however for your satisfaction here you are. 

(AP)  A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
Canadian Health Care In Crisis - CBS News

As reports over the last year from the Kirby Senate Committee and the Romanow
Commission attest, our Canadian Health Care System is in crisis...
http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/kickers/crisis.pdf

THE NHS is facing its biggest crisis in its history, it was revealed today.

The British National Health Service will be short of a massive £15billion after 2011 and may not &#8216;survive&#8217; if left unchanged, a report by the NHS Confederation said.
Daily Express | UK News :: Crisis for NHS as £15bn shortfall revealed

The financial crisis facing the NHS must be tackled by cutting waste rather than frontline staff and services, warn experts.
Dire predictions of a huge budget shortfall of between £8bn and £10bn over the three years after 2011 will not leave the NHS unchanged, according to the NHS Confederation.

It says rising costs caused by an ageing population and new treatments will outstrip any modest increases in the pipeline.
NHS crisis should be tackled by cutting waste rather than staff say experts | Mail Online

I'd be happy to provide you with anything else you would like as well Nik but I didn't feel it needed to crowd up my original post.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

I used Fraulein as an example to show that "socialized medicine will eventually lead to healthcare quality going in the tank.  I'm sure though this nirvana of  healthcare for all though will of course solve that issue when the Fed. Govt. steps in to manage it as well as they have the V.A. and Amtrack.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Funny...none of those provide comparisons.  

By the way...even with a "financial crisis", NHS is still significantly cheaper than US healthcare.  

For some comparisons...

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array



> Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.



Hmm...and lets compare government run healthcare (which isn't even being considered), which is basically VA care, as compared to regular US care.

Well here...read all about it yourself.  
"The Best Care Anywhere" by Phillip Longman


----------



## RodISHI (Jun 10, 2009)

The VA hospital has problems? The one in Des Moines took very good care of Rod last year. 

My dad was recently in the county hospital in Twin Falls, Idaho. I'd said for years I would not put my dog there but recently he had heart surgery and last week his kidneys shut down TF was the closet hospital to get him to. Third day in there they put a guy with the flu in the room in the bed next to him. Smart care...from a  bunch of dumb ass professionals. 

He has blue cross blue shield, medicaid, cash when required so it is not all a matter of cost. Our family doctor there in Idaho knew he'd be better off at home than in the same room with a contagious patient so he sent him home. 

We have had the pleasure of having a great doctor for the last ten years. The kind of person that really cares about people. The kind of doc that stills takes eggs and a chicken if that is all one had. He got tired of the local politics and the way the local school and the state education board treated his wife. Her credentials were outstanding, impeccable and they denied her the proper credits at the state level for over three years. She finally got that straighten out and then the school locals denied her the promotion into her trained field over a less qualified local with some strings to pull three times. They finally said to heck with it and moved. Our family doctor is now a So. CA doctor and his wife is a CA teacher. 

My grandson broke his arm some years back while with his dad. His dad took him to the local emergency room (dad's an EMT, you'd think he has a few brains somewhere in that big skull of his). By the time my daughter got there grandson had set there for three hours. The nurses did not even put ice on his swelling broken arm. My daughter asked them for an icepack and how long will it be before your doctor get's here? They told her it should not be much longer. Another twenty minutes went by no doctor and nurses that had been reluctant to give her an icepack (daughter is an EMT-firefighter-almost completed the full credits for her paramedic credentials). By then grandson had been at the hospital with a broken arm for three and a half hours. Our doctor is 30 miles away. Daughter calls our doctor and starts to leave the local hospital. The nurses start coming unwound and start threatening her. They are screaming at her that they will have her charged with child abuse if she takes him out of their hospital......

I'd think long and hard before I gave any one entity charge over my health or the health of my loved ones.

I'm thinking how stupid so many people are in government positions now what will we have if they take over medical care?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik I think you fail to see the overall picture, here. When government enters into the healthcare business by acting as an agent to provide healthcare insurance  and at the same time regulates others within the same industry it will have the effect of  driving people to the Govt. run healhtcare system which will eventually lead to a single source for healthcare which is the goal here. 

As for your assertions on NHS, while it is cheaper that does not change the arguement that by being cheaper it  changes the  quailty which I clearly showed you it does.  There are literally  thousands of articles on the topic that the quality of healthcare in Canada is  in crisis.  In fact one of the original authors of  Canada's Healthcare system is now pushing for  " patient choice".  

WASHINGTON, D.C. - An independent report issued today by the leader of the nation&#8217;s largest veterans organization paints a gloomy picture for military veterans seeking care in the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Ronald F. Conley, national commander of the 2.8 million-member American Legion, personally investigated more than 50 VA facilities throughout the country in the past nine months and reported his findings today to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. &#8220;America&#8217;s excellent VA health care system &#8211; a paragon of quality in so many ways &#8211; is being consumed by fiscal neglect,&#8221; he reported. &#8220;It is my duty as a leader of veterans to share that portrait with those who have the power to change it, and to expose it before a public that is largely unaware a problem even exists. It has been an eye-opening journey.&#8221; Conley collected examples of the many ways in which the discretionary appropriations model fails to fulfill the care-giving purposes of VA. &#8220;I am now convinced that anything less than a mandatory funding model is a guarantee that veterans, their service organizations, congressional committees and VA officials will continue visiting and revisiting this issue until they realize that 30-percent increases in demand cannot be served by 7-percent increases of funds,&#8221; Conley said. While Conley found several facilities rated very high by veterans, he reports that demand has soared, and funding has failed miserably to keep up. &#8220;Staff shortages are everywhere,&#8221; Conley said. &#8220;Those shortages close beds, wards, emergency rooms, nursing homes and intensive care units. The shortages force patients for whom the facilities were built to be turned away. Shortages force the VA secretary to unravel the clear intent of the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 by once again restricting enrollment only to the poorest and sickest among those who served.&#8221;
Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion

I'm sorry but the V.A. is NOT a shinning example of Govt. healthcare and is still a wreck despite all the funding increases.  I've had the rare privledge of having to deal with the V.A. many times and have seen first hand as compared to private medicine what the difference is. Let me give you and example in some V.A. hospitals due to staffing shortages  they often times pull from teaching hospitals inexperienced Doctors to fill in where none can be found leading to an even further downfall in the quality of care. 

Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion

Let me see if I understand this  the US GDP is 13.84 Trillion dollars and Canada is 1.27 Trillion and accodring to your study you posted the US pays more for healthcare as a percent of GDP that Canada does  and the  quality number according to my reading depending on what affliction they were talking about was around 5%.  Of course we are going to pay more for healthcare in this country we spend more thats fairly obvious.  Other factors not  listed in the report you gave were things such has liability and  the cost of supporting  illegal immigrant medical care which in California alone was 1.5 Billion dollars last year.  The fact remains for the amount Canada spends on provding  healthcare for its citizens  the quality and availabilty is  in crisis mode and that not me talking. As what I gave you clearly states.   The  U.K. is not much different and you can see by the old Soviet model what became of that. 

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes *may be superior *in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, *but differences are not consistent.*

This healthcare issue as I have stated on many other postings is a cost related issue and is easily addresed  without mandating  healthcare for all and reducing  quality of healthcare across the board.  If you don't think it is  I have a  little video for you to watch. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSe3C5vMafM&feature=related]YouTube - 1 Florida Hospital Testimony video goes National on DC news.[/ame]


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Nik I think you fail to see the overall picture, here. When government enters into the healthcare business by acting as an agent to provide healthcare insurance  and at the same time regulates others within the same industry it will have the effect of  driving people to the Govt. run healhtcare system which will eventually lead to a single source for healthcare which is the goal here.



It will lead people to government healthcare *because government healthcare will be of higher quality*.  If not, then it won't.  Its a win-win, unless you are a shill for insurance companies, which you seem to be.  



> As for your assertions on NHS, while it is cheaper that does not change the arguement that by being cheaper it  changes the  quailty which I clearly showed you it does.  There are literally  thousands of articles on the topic that the quality of healthcare in Canada is  in crisis.  In fact one of the original authors of  Canada's Healthcare system is now pushing for  " patient choice".



You showed nothing of the sort.  You said they were suffering from financial problems, well so are we.  



> WASHINGTON, D.C. - An independent report issued today by the leader of the nations largest veterans organization paints a gloomy picture for military veterans seeking care in the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Ronald F. Conley, national commander of the 2.8 million-member American Legion, personally investigated more than 50 VA facilities throughout the country in the past nine months and reported his findings today to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Americas excellent VA health care system  a paragon of quality in so many ways  is being consumed by fiscal neglect, he reported. It is my duty as a leader of veterans to share that portrait with those who have the power to change it, and to expose it before a public that is largely unaware a problem even exists. It has been an eye-opening journey. Conley collected examples of the many ways in which the discretionary appropriations model fails to fulfill the care-giving purposes of VA. I am now convinced that anything less than a mandatory funding model is a guarantee that veterans, their service organizations, congressional committees and VA officials will continue visiting and revisiting this issue until they realize that 30-percent increases in demand cannot be served by 7-percent increases of funds, Conley said. While Conley found several facilities rated very high by veterans, he reports that demand has soared, and funding has failed miserably to keep up. Staff shortages are everywhere, Conley said. Those shortages close beds, wards, emergency rooms, nursing homes and intensive care units. The shortages force patients for whom the facilities were built to be turned away. Shortages force the VA secretary to unravel the clear intent of the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 by once again restricting enrollment only to the poorest and sickest among those who served.
> Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion
> 
> I'm sorry but the V.A. is NOT a shinning example of Govt. healthcare and is still a wreck despite all the funding increases.  I've had the rare privledge of having to deal with the V.A. many times and have seen first hand as compared to private medicine what the difference is. Let me give you and example in some V.A. hospitals due to staffing shortages  they often times pull from teaching hospitals inexperienced Doctors to fill in where none can be found leading to an even further downfall in the quality of care.
> ...



I never said it was a "shining example".  I said it was better than private healthcare in this country. 



> Let me see if I understand this  the US GDP is 13.84 Trillion dollars and Canada is 1.27 Trillion and accodring to your study you posted the US pays more for healthcare as a percent of GDP that Canada does  and the  quality number according to my reading depending on what affliction they were talking about was around 5%.  Of course we are going to pay more for healthcare in this country we spend more thats fairly obvious.



Umm, what?  We are going to pay more if we spend more?  What the hell?  



> Other factors not  listed in the report you gave were things such has liability and  the cost of supporting  illegal immigrant medical care which in California alone was 1.5 Billion dollars last year.  The fact remains for the amount Canada spends on provding  healthcare for its citizens  the quality and availabilty is  in crisis mode and that not me talking. As what I gave you clearly states.   The  U.K. is not much different and you can see by the old Soviet model what became of that.



Again, care to show me a chart comparing areas where liability is capped, and where its not?  

As for the price...we pay more per person, and we don't insure tens of millions of people who have essentially no healthcare.  



> Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes *may be superior *in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, *but differences are not consistent.*
> 
> This healthcare issue as I have stated on many other postings is a cost related issue and is easily addresed  without mandating  healthcare for all and reducing  quality of healthcare across the board.  If you don't think it is  I have a  little video for you to watch.
> 
> YouTube - 1 Florida Hospital Testimony video goes National on DC news.



Easily addressed?  And how exactly would you address it?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 10, 2009)

But what exactly do you suggest Navy?  What is your sollution to the Health care problems we have in this country?

Leave it the way it is, adding 5 million people to the UNinsured  Rolls every 5 years? 

With the cost of healthcare rising double digits in price each and every year or above inflation and above our pay raises each and every year, as it has been for over a decade now?

Let businesses go bankrupt, because providing healthcare for their employees and the costs of such brings them to their knees while everyone else globally competing with them for the business does not need to provide health care for their employees because it is already a government benefit, whoops their butt underbidding them for the contracts or business out there?

Or continue to give the private insurance companies 30% of the cost of our healthcare for just pushing paper?

What is it that you and others opposing any healthcare reform think should be done to correct ALL OF THE ILLS of the way things are going now with health care and it's out of control rate hikes each and every year?

Also, do you really believe the tripe that you posted and that doctors and hospitals and medical techs and lab technicians and nurses will all be working and paid for by our government?

Why would the insurance companies be ALL GUNG HO for Obama's plan if they eventually will be wiped out on that slippery slope you imply is coming...are you smarter than the insurance companies making this decision themselves for their stock holders?

I think the insurance companies KNOW they got a good thing coming with Obama's plan...raking in 30% of the healthcare industry gdp for ALL americans will make them even richer and is a mistake personally and would rather figure out a way, to leave the middleman out of it or in the least, leave the for profit private businesses out of it....all businesses involved in our healthcare should be not for profits, nonprofit businesses imo.

once again, what are your solutions to our health care problems, issues?

Care


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 10, 2009)

When I see my medicare and medicaid clients getting the same quality of healthcare as those who have private insurance coverage, then I'll buy into the whole ridiculous lie about nationalized health care being somehow better.

The government should NOT be involved in our medical care. They shouldn't be involved in our treatment, they shouldn't be overseeing the medical professionals in any but the most standard sense. They certainly shouldn't have control over our treatment...and that's where this is going.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 10, 2009)

Our healthcare issues are a direct response to our insistence that people do NOT have to be responsible for themselves. When we started peddling that b.s., we started having health care problems.

My clients come to me when they're 60 years old, haven't worked enough in their entire lives to build up ANY social security benefits, and now they need dental care...and somehow it's MY RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they get it.

You know what? It's not my responsibility. People need to be taught from the fucking cradle that they are responsible for themfuckingselves. Otherwise, you'll be 60 years old, no income, been lazing around all your life...and suddenly you honestly CAN'T work, and sorry, there's no net there for you...no magic cure. 

We are Americans. Americans have traditionally been independent and hard working. Until the left started telling us that was "bad" and "wrong" and everyone is entitled to free food, free shelter, free medical care...why bother working? It's the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to take care of you....

What complete crap. It ISN'T the government's job to hold your hand through life. If you can't afford health care, I recommend you get off your fucking ass and come up with a plan. Teach your kids that they are responsible for themselves, and they need to start YOUNG in order to make sure that when a rainy day comes, they are safe.

It's not fucking rocket science.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Our healthcare issues are a direct response to our insistence that people do NOT have to be responsible for themselves. When we started peddling that b.s., we started having health care problems.
> 
> My clients come to me when they're 60 years old, haven't worked enough in their entire lives to build up ANY social security benefits, and now they need dental care...and somehow it's MY RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they get it.
> 
> ...



Well it sure is a great thing that all those people who worked hard, and had medical insurance didn't have to file bankruptcy for medical reasons....

Or, you know...not...



> Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families: $26,971 for uninsured patients; $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset; $14,633 for those with Medicaid; $12,021 for those with Medicare; and $6,545 for those with VA/military coverage. For patients who initially had private coverage but lost it, the family's out-of-pocket expenses averaged $22,568.



http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJMMedicalBankruptcyJun09FINAL2.pdf

$18,000 for people with private insurance...could you handle $18,000 worth of bills to save your life right now?


----------



## editec (Jun 10, 2009)

The problem of rasing HC costs will not be solved by changing the system OR by keeping it the same, either

The problem of unaffordable HC for most Americans is going to get worse if we do nothing, and it will get worse if we try single payer too.

Either we force the HC industry to expect  less money for their services (and we all know how badly those plans work) or we accept that the demograohics are going to make things get worse for most of us.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

editec said:


> The problem of rasing HC costs will not be solved by changing the system OR by keeping it the same, either
> 
> The problem of unaffordable HC for most Americans is going to get worse if we do nothing, and it will get worse if we try single payer too.
> 
> Either we force the HC industry to expect  less money for their services (and we all know how badly those plans work) or we accept that the demograohics are going to make things get worse for most of us.



We can make healthcare companies expect less money for their "services" and I'm pretty sure things will be fine.  Their services mostly consist of charging vast amounts for insurance and hiring hordes of people to find loopholes to deny claims, both things we can do without.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> We can make healthcare companies expect less money for their "services" and I'm pretty sure things will be fine.  Their services mostly consist of charging vast amounts for insurance and hiring hordes of people to find loopholes to deny claims, both things we can do without.



Not necessarily, go back and read the Kerry-Danforth Commission Report recommendations regarding Medicare (1996 I believe), the idea was to come up with ways to reduce healthcare costs by removing inefficiencies from the current healthcare delivery system. Obviously it's a huge endeavor, however if this isn't done it's a moot point because no matter what system of health insurance you come up with rising health care delivery costs will eventually break it. 

Medicare already has $36.3 trillion in long term unfunded liabilities (and growing every year) this coupled with unfunded SS liabilities ($6.6 trillion) and other unfunded federal pension liabilities ($13.5 trillion), this is over and above the accumulated federal operating deficits and will eventually lead to the Bankrupting of the Nation anyways. So the question of adding a new federal health insurance program is pretty much moot, long term it is completely unaffordable anyways.


----------



## Nik (Jun 10, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > We can make healthcare companies expect less money for their "services" and I'm pretty sure things will be fine.  Their services mostly consist of charging vast amounts for insurance and hiring hordes of people to find loopholes to deny claims, both things we can do without.
> ...



Thats part of the Obama plan, but the problem is that those things are hard to implement because they have a one-off cost that is high, and with Republicans suddenly finding themselves fiscal conservatives again, its hard to get things done even if it will save money in the future.

We spend WAY more money on healthcare than we should.  The government should be able to do it for substantially less, and save it, and us, lots of money.  But we'll see how well that goes.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

When has the government ever created an entitlement that costs the same or less than they said it would?


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Thats part of the Obama plan, but the problem is that those things are hard to implement because they have a one-off cost that is high, and with Republicans suddenly finding themselves fiscal conservatives again, its hard to get things done even if it will save money in the future.


Unfortunately the Obama Plan is complete hogwash, because it doesn't address the long term costs. You have to contain the rising healthcare delivery costs FIRST by working with the industry to develop a more efficient delivery system, then you can assess the feasibility of any proposed federal health care plan. Otherwise you're just playing games with smoke & mirrors projections which never work out where the federal government is concerned, they did the same thing with Medicare Part D (a program which a majority of seniors surveyed said they didn't need) and ended up piling on another $8 Trillion in unfunded liabilities instead of the promised cost savings from the program. 

Obama's plan is simply designed to give him and the democrats a short term feather in their caps without actually doing the hard work of accomplishing anything to contain rising costs. If you want something workable that won't send your children and grandchildren to the poor house, demand that the difficult work be done up front and then we can talk about expanding federal health insurance. 



> We spend WAY more money on healthcare than we should.  The government should be able to do it for substantially less, and save it, and us, lots of money.  But we'll see how well that goes.


Should and will are too very different things and the Federal Government has absolutely no track record of doing ANYTHING for "substantially less".


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 10, 2009)

Well let's see first let me address your issues again Nik I posted  Canada's issues with their healthcase system in a previous post for you to read. If you don't care to read it I cannot force you.  The other question you addressed to me was about paying more.  Our GDP is much higher than any nations on this planet. So it follows that as a result we are going to spend more  on healthcare as we would on any other service in this country.

As for what both you and  Care asked me about what I suggest on healthcare I have many suggestions and they do NOT include Govt. mandated  healthcare or for that matter Govt. sponsored healthcare.  To me this is an issue of  service costs out of control. There are many factors that drive those costs among them as in my previous post the high costs of liablity insurance, high costs of illegal immigrant health care, lack of  regulation where its needed.  The first and easiest thing to do with healthcare is to place strict limits on liability awards and place caps on liability insurance costs to medical service providers.   The second thing that can be done and thats quite obvious is as well, is to finally get the illegal immigration issue solved and  take the stress off the states and private medical providers  of having to provide literally billions of dollars annually in free medical care.  Other things that can be done is set limitations and caps on costs for those insurance providers that offer  health coverage from state to state.  Still even more things you can do is provide tax  incentives and grants to companies and Federal loans to companies wishing to go into the medical insurance business  to promote competetion.  All of these things can be done to drive down costs and make healthcare more affordable for everyone.  Still more things you can do is  address the  Pharm. patent issue.  For example, when the FDA issues a patent  the FDA can require the companies offer  a percentage of their  drugs  through state programs  Free or at little cost to the consumer.  You both asked me what I would do, well those are just a few things I suggest that could be done. the problem is that of the 47 million people that are not covered according to US Census how many of those don't need or require coverage or for that matter want it.  Healthcare  I'm afriad to break it to you both is not a "right" however the commerce and business of healthcare falls within the framework of what our Govt.s charter.  I suggest rather than look to other nations who's healthcare systems are  underserved because they are run by one entity, we fix the one we have and stop condemning companies because they happen to make a profit.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 10, 2009)

> The first and easiest thing to do with healthcare is to place strict limits on liability awards and place caps on liability insurance costs to medical service providers.



Medical malpractice insurance is high, if this is what you are talking about when it comes to liability Navy....but limiting awards or even capping the cost for doctor's coverage will not help that much....neither deal with the underlying problem of what is causing the very high cost to doctors for their medical malpractice insurance or hospitals for their medical malpractice insurance...it may treat the sympton but not get to the root of what is causing the prices to go so high.

There are 2 main reasons malpractice costs go up and medical malpractice lawsuits or their awards amounts to less than 1% of the cost of our health care today...so limiting the amount that one can sue for or be awarded for the medical malpractice put upon them with injuries is NOT what is affecting the cost of health care to be so high(besides, why in the world would we have our government determine this cap for this industry while other industries are not so lucky to get the gvt to cover their asses in such a manner...that would be favoritism of our govt towards a private industry!)....well, not directly....the cost of medical malpractice insurance is prohibitting to many doctors, and could cause the price of healthcare to be higher through doctor's fees....

So, what are the reasons for malpractice insurance being so high...

1.  Insurance companies invest in the stock market to make their overall profit goals....when the market does poorly, they raise their customers healthcare insurance, malpractice insurance prices to make more profit in these areas of their businesses to compensate for the lack luster market investments. they have made.

2.  Less than 10% of all doctors have been involved in medical malpractice....these 10% that have been sued and financially punished for medical malpractice are REPEAT OFFENDERS...on average, they've had about 3-5 malpractice suits which they have lost and were at fault.

These are bad Doctors that should lose their license and the AMA should have a better system of getting rid of the few bad apples that they have...INSTEAD, these repeat offenders, keep their medical licence, go unpunished and continue to be sued for their medical malpractice put upon their patients.

This in turn makes medical malpractice insurance be extremely high for the 90% of the doctors that will never, ever commit medical malpractice, because they are left to help pay for the cost of what 10% of the Doctors commit, medical malpractice....

I think the AMA should get rid of the bad doctors instead of keeping them on, and this will solve a great deal of the problem...ya know?  

And also, if the AMA won't do this, then the medical malpractice insurance providers should have the option of dropping their coverage or charging them, and them alone, the fees needed to cover their malparactice mistakes and not make the others getting insurance that are never at risk of committing malpractice, the guys holding the bag...or paying the bill.

I didn't address number 1. on the reasons....I am uncertain what can be done...but maybe if insurance companies were insurance companies and not so diversified in to investing in to mortgaged backed securies and stuff like that which huge corporations tend to get in to...we wouldn't have them raising our insurance costs to cover their own bad ass investments not related to health or malpractice insurance?

I gotta go for a bit...I will try to address some of your other solutions when I can later on Navy!

Care


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I'd be happy too Nik , I have posted data on this  several times in the past and will be happy to post it here. I fail to see how I was making a pronouncement about things  however for your satisfaction here you are.
> 
> (AP)  A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
> Canadian Health Care In Crisis - CBS News
> ...



Those systems are in crisis because they are underfunded, plain and simple.  We pay double what they pay.  They need to pay more.  If they increased funding by 50%, their costs would still be 25% lower than our own, everyone would be covered, and they would have excellent service.  

No one is suggesting healthcare is free, nor should we or can we make it free.  However, it should be available to everyone and everyone should contribute at least a minimum toward their own care.  By removing the insurance companies and their profit margin, there is no reason that actual funding to healthcare would be decreased, yet we would reduce costs by at least 25%.  

The issue that those of you supporting our current system never address is the fact that the current system has driven costs out of control, and to top it off, there is no end in sight.  Costs are estimated to double again, in real dollars, over the next 20 years.  Then who will be able to afford healthcare?  Healthcare costs will consume 50% of the average stiffs income.  They won't be able to afford, nor will their employers.  

And the worse it gets, the sooner we will move towards removing the insurance companies out of the picture.  The bottom line is that our entire economy will collapse if healthcare costs reach the point of eating more than 30% of our GDP.  There just won't be enough left to keep the rest of the economy going.  Those who have gained wealth over the years will lose it all.  

Fewer Small Business Owners Can Afford to Offer Healthcare, but Split on Solution

Based on this survey, the number of small businesses offereing healthcare insurance dropped by 32% because the cost is just too much.  Guess what will happen as the costs continue to increase; fewer and fewer companies will offer health plans.  We are headed to a real nightmare unless something changes soon.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Underfunded means they can't raise taxes fast enough to pay for them.

Because people were lied to about it the real cost.

Take note of that.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Those systems are in crisis because they are underfunded, plain and simple.


Riiiiiight.

Whenever any big gubmint boondoggle falls flat on its face -like they all do- Plan A is _*always*_ to bitch about the program being "underfunded"

See: Gubmint schools.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

The only costs that are out of control right now is the cost of government.  They are the only entity not shrinking commensurately with the economy.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Well let's see first let me address your issues again Nik I posted  Canada's issues with their healthcase system in a previous post for you to read. If you don't care to read it I cannot force you.  The other question you addressed to me was about paying more.  Our GDP is much higher than any nations on this planet. So it follows that as a result we are going to spend more  on healthcare as we would on any other service in this country.
> 
> As for what both you and  Care asked me about what I suggest on healthcare I have many suggestions and they do NOT include Govt. mandated  healthcare or for that matter Govt. sponsored healthcare.  To me this is an issue of  service costs out of control. There are many factors that drive those costs among them as in my previous post the high costs of liablity insurance, high costs of illegal immigrant health care, lack of  regulation where its needed.  The first and easiest thing to do with healthcare is to place strict limits on liability awards and place caps on liability insurance costs to medical service providers.   The second thing that can be done and thats quite obvious is as well, is to finally get the illegal immigration issue solved and  take the stress off the states and private medical providers  of having to provide literally billions of dollars annually in free medical care.  Other things that can be done is set limitations and caps on costs for those insurance providers that offer  health coverage from state to state.  Still even more things you can do is provide tax  incentives and grants to companies and Federal loans to companies wishing to go into the medical insurance business  to promote competetion.  All of these things can be done to drive down costs and make healthcare more affordable for everyone.  Still more things you can do is  address the  Pharm. patent issue.  For example, when the FDA issues a patent  the FDA can require the companies offer  a percentage of their  drugs  through state programs  Free or at little cost to the consumer.  You both asked me what I would do, well those are just a few things I suggest that could be done. the problem is that of the 47 million people that are not covered according to US Census how many of those don't need or require coverage or for that matter want it.  Healthcare  I'm afriad to break it to you both is not a "right" however the commerce and business of healthcare falls within the framework of what our Govt.s charter.  I suggest rather than look to other nations who's healthcare systems are  underserved because they are run by one entity, we fix the one we have and stop condemning companies because they happen to make a profit.



Navy, while I don't disagree with any of your specific recommendations unfortunately you're missing one piece of critical information that is required to make a valid assessment of them, specifically quantifying the actual regulatory costs. The government has no idea how much the current regulatory framework is actually costing the healthcare delivery sector, without such information one cannot possibly intelligently determine which regulations need to be removed or altered. 

This is an ongoing problem with law makers most often they do not take the time to quantify the costs of regulation or examine potential unintended consequences prior to implementation, nor do they go back and continuously review and update existing regulation to remove any unforeseen costs or remove unintended consequences post-implementation. We have plenty of people running around saying "if only we got rid of regulation X it would be cheaper" ... unfortunately they cannot demonstrate the truth of their statements with hard numbers.

That is the sort of hard work that politicians seem unwilling to undertake.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 10, 2009)

did i hear a parrot or two?

I wonder if they have any of their own solutions?  Or do they just mock and repeat what they are told?

j/k  

But come on guys and gals!!!  Where is your critical thinking and where are your ideas on how to fix our looming health care problems???

care


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

Stop subsidizing group health insurance with tax breaks.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2009)

Declare medical insurance sales a free field of interstate commerce, with which no state may interfere.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 10, 2009)

The drones' tunnel vision is that "someone" has to do "something" and that "someone" is only government.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> The drones' tunnel vision is that "someone" has to do "something" and that "someone" is only government.



well, you are not government, what have you done or can you do about it?

what has the private sector done about it the last 10 years other than raise the cost of it by double digits each year?

where are these NON GVT ENTITIES that you speak of that can fix it?  why are they sitting on their hands?

care


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> well, you are not government, what have you done or can you do about it?
> _*
> what has the private sector done about it the last 10 years other than raise the cost of it by double digits each year?*_


What is the cost of Medicare/Medicaid versus what it was projected to cost back in '65??...G'head and adjust it for inflation.

Show your math.



Care4all said:


> where are these NON GVT ENTITIES that you speak of that can fix it?  why are they sitting on their hands?


The non gubmint entities are only playing by the rules and regs foisted upon them by gubmint....Like the state laws that prevent individuals from shopping out of state for cafeteria-style coverage.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

See, I know how you people operate.  I know how this movie ends.  You are a drone who thinks government has to do it or it won't get done.

Market forces have had nothing to do with the direction of health care costs in the past 10 years.

Except Lasik.   Has it gotten cheaper or more expensive?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Market forces have had nothing to do with the direction of health care costs in the past 10 years.
> 
> Except Lasik.   Has it gotten cheaper or more expensive?


Don't forget plastic surgery and hair transplants.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

All the procedures nobody expects somebody else to pay for.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> See, I know how you people operate.  I know how this movie ends.  You are a drone who thinks government has to do it or it won't get done.
> 
> Market forces have had nothing to do with the direction of health care costs in the past 10 years.
> 
> Except Lasik.   Has it gotten cheaper or more expensive?



so what do you suggest are the measures that need to be taken to truly address the outrageous amounts of money we spend on healthcare and why do you think your measures will really work?

i am not set on any one solution or one means to address our problems...but i know, with every ounce of intelligence God gave me, that we do have major problems that have to be addressed and can;t be ignored.



care


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > See, I know how you people operate.  I know how this movie ends.  You are a drone who thinks government has to do it or it won't get done.
> ...



Do you really know how market forces work?  Tell me everything you understand about that in 25 words or less.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> so what do you suggest are the messures that need to be taken to truly address the _*outrageous amounts of money *_we spend on healthcare and why do you think your messures will trally work?
> 
> i am not set on any one solution or one means to address our problems...but i know, with every ounce of intelligence God gave me, that we do have major problems that have to be addressed and can;t be ignored.
> 
> care


"Outrageous amounts of money" by whose definition??

If the competitive pricing and subsequently falling costs of cash-and-carry procedures like Lasik, plastic surgery, and hair transplants aren't proof enough of how returning medical services to a truly free market model will work, what evidence would you accept??


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

Is $100,000 an outrageous amount of money for a house or $1,000,000?  Is $4/gallon for gas outrageous?  How about $3/gallon?  

If I sold tacos out of a cart at care4all's place of employment for $25 each because the owner of her company negotiated that, so that others could eat lunch for free, would care4all be smart enough to go down the block and see if she could get a taco cheaper?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> If I sold tacos out of a cart at care4all's place of employment for $25 each because the owner of her company negotiated that, so that others could eat lunch for free, would care4all be smart enough to go down the block and see if she could get a taco cheaper?


If you were being paid $25.00 from a third party for  $3.00 tacos, which were in turn delivered to someone else, what would stop you from serving tacos that only cost you $2.00 and pocketing the difference??


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

Thanks to public schools, these drones have a very one dimensional view of what makes the cost of goods.  

High cost, high profit - bad.  Low cost, low profit - good.  With the possible exception of Wal-Mart on the latter.  

Cognitive dissonance is a full time job  when you're a liberal.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > so what do you suggest are the messures that need to be taken to truly address the _*outrageous amounts of money *_we spend on healthcare and why do you think your messures will trally work?
> ...



i don't think one procedure or the cosmetic industry of health care can compare with the nonelective, health side of it....

cosmetic, elective surgeries  allows the free market to work because there is no need or necessity to it or time barriers.

you have time to shop around, businesses become more competitive to get your business...

when your arm is cut off by a tractor, or you have a heart attack, or you have cancer...there is not time to call and price things to see what doc or hospital to use....

health care choices is not deciding what shoes to buy and whom to buy them from and for what outfit to where them with....ones health is not a proverbial widget bought and sold in capitalism imo...it just doesn't fit the pure capitalistic mold, how could it?

i am not against capitalism, i made my living in that arena, the corporate end of it and i just don't think dealing with ones health care is done in the same manner or under the same conditions as every day shopping.

care


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




For all but catastrophic or chronic illness it is.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i don't think one procedure or the cosmetic industry of health care can compare with the nonelective, health side of it....
> 
> cosmetic, elective surgeries  allows the free market to work because there is no need or necessity to it or time barriers.
> 
> ...


Things at the 7-11 cost more than what you can get at the grocery store....Airline tickets bought at the last minute cost more than those reserved weeks in advance...So, what else is new??

Life's tough, shit happens, wear a helmet.



Care4all said:


> health care choices is not deciding what shoes to buy and whom to buy them from and for what outfit to where them with....ones health is not a proverbial widget bought and sold in capitalism imo...it just doesn't fit the pure capitalistic mold, how could it?


Says who??



Care4all said:


> i am not against capitalism, i made my living in that arena, the corporate end of it and i just don't think dealing with ones health care is done in the same manner or under the same conditions as every day shopping.
> 
> care


Your limiting beliefs are your problem.


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

You must eat every day.  Does capitalism not work for that?  Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective.  Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in?  Or just the few people who can't afford housing?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> You must eat every day.  Does capitalism not work for that?  Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?



obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....


----------



## Fraulein Hilda (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > You must eat every day.  Does capitalism not work for that?  Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?
> ...



Bullshit.  He intends to create a new public health care benefit paid for by taxing private health care out of business and/or competing with it in a predatory fashion to drive it out of business.  Read up on it.  Democrats are not bashful about their intensions here.

Don't be a sucker.

It's completely about command and control.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....


Total lie....Not saying that you're willingly lying, but that your promulgating the lie that is the party line.

The private sector will be no more in "complete control" of delivery of medical services, any more than GM is in "complete control" of who their CEO is or what kinds of cars they will be allowed to build.

A pit bull is a pit bull, not a  chihuahua....A shark is a shark, not a guppy....A Marxist is a Marxist, not a free marketer.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Is $100,000 an outrageous amount of money for a house or $1,000,000?  Is $4/gallon for gas outrageous?  How about $3/gallon?
> 
> If I sold tacos out of a cart at care4all's place of employment for $25 each because the owner of her company negotiated that, so that others could eat lunch for free, would care4all be smart enough to go down the block and see if she could get a taco cheaper?



We are paying the $25 dollars NOW for a SINGLE taco....so, what's your plan?  Keep it the same?  Let that $25 taco turn in to a $30 dollar taco the next year or a $35 taco the year after that?  This IS WHAT IS HAPPENING already and being an ostrich will not help us, only make it worse fraulein.

care


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....
> ...



So you think the Insurance corporations are all goo goo ga ga over this plan because they see themselves losing money in the long run Dude?  I don't.

Care


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> So you think the Insurance corporations are all goo goo ga ga over this plan because they see themselves losing money in the long run Dude?  I don't.
> 
> Care



I wouldn't say Insurance Corporations are all "goo goo ga ga" over the plan, however it's clear that certain players will support it because it's an opportunity for them to get their fingers deeper into the legalized plunder pie and reduce competition via fiat. This is not a valid argument for implementing a new government health care program, all it indicates is that certain players will gladly take additional corporate welfare and regulatory favoritism (nothing new there).


----------



## DavidS (Jun 11, 2009)

Unfortunately, some of our older folks on this forum think the C and S words are supposed to scare us. Ohhh nooo communism! Ohhh nooo socialism!! The only reason why they're scary words is because they're linked to totalitarian regime's in Asia that abuse human rights very openly and publicly when in fact, neither economic model actually include abusing and killing your people as part of its business model.

Additionally, both Russia and China are very poor, right? Well is Russia is actually MORE POOR under their version of capitalism than they were under communism. Yes, the people are free, but they have no food on their tables. And China's economy is growing 6-7% every quarter. If our economy was growing 6-7% every quarter can you imagine what we would be like???

I hate to steal a few lines from the Matrix 3 but...

Communism and socialism are not economic business models. They are words. What matters is the connection the words imply. The right-wing conservatives will try to scare you and tell you that these words mean very bad things. Perception = reality. The way you perceive things becomes your version of reality.

If you do your research, though, there are some ideas, not all, just a few, in communism and socialism that are actually good ideas. The current healthcare system in the United States is corrupt, badly run, and leaves tens of millions of people without coverage. If they get sick - who's going to help them? Healthcare bills for the uninsured makeup 60% of all bankruptcies right now.

The right-wing is telling us that the new government system is going to put insurance companies out of business. My question is - why can't they adapt? Any good businessperson will adapt to his competition and make his product better than his competition. The health insurance companies have had decades to improve - and they haven't. Why? Because they don't have to. They can continue giving us the lowest quality health insurance for the maximum price as long as they want to until someone, somewhere does something about it. That someone is the Federal Government from Washington DC.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

Care, while I somewhat agree with your assesment that malpractice rates are out of control and are causing GP's, as well as many Healthcare  workers and Hospitals to pass along those costs to the the public or just plain cut back on services. I don't think that this is a result of the insurance companies  actually trying to recover losses  in the stock market or  increase profits  on the trading floor to pad the bottom line for the shareholders.   While yes , these comnpanies are in the business to make  money and are "for profit" companies, I personally  don't see anything wrong with that.  While of course others are free to disagree with me  on that point  and I guess when you get right down to it. thats the  real issue here, are insurance companies entitled to make a profit.  While I understand you see it as  a company making money off the pain and suffer of others, and I see it as company making money for providing a much needed service.  I do believe, that all these issues while linked.  liability, malpractice, etc.etc are all contributing factors to the high costs of medical care and can be addressed  withing the framework of our Govt. and done so in a manner that does not mandate healthcare for all. It would be my goal here to have a healthcare system that make healthcare available and affordable for those that wish it have it, as it should be in a a free society such as ours. Now while that may be  somewhat old fashioned I suppose, in my mind  that thinking should never go out of style.  To me this issue is a problem easily resolved once you get the special interests out of the  way and actually work in the problem. Those special interests  are on both sides of the isle and the majority of people who want and need  affodable healthcare are usually caught in the middle.  Now you asked me for a few suggestions that I might make, those were just a few in my previous post. While I understand that not one single issue  is the cause  when you take them in combination and adress them one by one, then you will have something.  Again, though Care. and you know I respect and admire your opinion, however on this issue you must understand that my position is acutally quite clear. My position is that the Federal Govt. is not chartered under the constitution to provide healthcare for it's citizens,  and keeping this in mind, while I understand the need to reform costs and bring them under cnotrol in the healthcare industry. The  framework is actually in place at least in my mind to do these things without a massive Federal Govt. intervention in a private industry.  Still further, as a suggestion, I submit all those that are advocating  "nationalized healthcare" in whatever form  it happens to be in, should consider a constitutional  amendment  that works within the framework of our form of Govt. 

 ewer medical malpractice claims are being filed. States that passed tort reform saw a significant drop in the number of claims filed, and those that did not pass reform also saw a decline, according to Gen Re, a reinsurer of medical malpractice insurance companies. To explain the trend, analysts point to the results of patient safety initiatives, including better risk management; fewer &#8220;frivolous&#8221; suits; the increasing costs of bringing a case to trial, which may have caused plaintiffs&#8217; attorneys to concentrate on cases with the greatest recovery potential; and society&#8217;s growing concern about the impact of litigiousness. 


But the dollar amount of each claim is increasing. In a report on the medical malpractice insurance environment, Gen Re notes that claim costs for physicians and surgeons rose 7 percent and 9.5 percent for hospitals. Likewise, the insurance broker Aon, in its Hospital Professional Liability and Physician Liability 2006 Benchmark Analysis, examining more than 47,700 claims representing more than $4.4 billion of incurred losses, found that while claim frequency is stabilizing, the average size of claims continues to increase at a rate of 6 percent a year. The average amount paid to plaintiffs increased only 3 percent, while amounts paid to defend against liability claims rose 17 percent as hospitals mount a more aggressive defense of claims.


Claims, Jury Awards and Settlements: A report on the state&#8217;s medical malpractice insurance market by the Florida Department of Insurance shows the breakdown of claims payments in 2006. Insurers paid out $602 million on 3,811 closed claims, with 62 percent going for economic damages and 38 percent for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering.
III - Medical Malpractice

A little light reading on the malpractice issue and the liability issue. As I suggested  putting caps on jury awards is just one factor in a  big picture. 

In a competitive market, however, driving such hard bargains is impossible, so relative prices reflect actual relative costs. The kind of plan the Obama administration envisions gives us the worst of both worlds. Its artificially low premiums will drive most private insurance out of business. Once there are no private insurers left, there will be no place left to shift costs. In a very short time, then, we'll have no reduction in cost due to cost shifting, and we'll have substantially less competition. The absence of competition will result in higher actual costs. This has been the experience in countries with nationalized health care, which is why many have an even worse entitlement problem looming than the United States.

The better solution is to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of employer-provided insurance. That also, indirectly, would reduce the scale of the other major problem in American health care: covering the uninsured. Now it is very difficult to purchase insurance if you are not employed or if you work for a very small employer. Once insurance migrates out of large employer pools, sufficiently large pools will become possible with individualized insurance. Customers then would be able to vote with their feet if they are unsatisfied, and those who don't work for large employers no longer would have to pay higher premiums than everyone else.
Health care reform: The real problem is lack of competition - STLtoday.com

I also mentioned a little something about  providing an evironment that promotes competetion which the Federal Govt. has every right to do.  When people have greater choice prices come down.  Don't get me wrong here Care I'm all for reforming the health insurance industry however I don't think the way to do about it is to have a Federal Govt. mandated insurance program nor a Federal Govt. insurance option in direct competetion with the same  companies you regulate.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

What is the well needed service that the insurance companies supply Navy....?

and i still haven't finished your post, but that question immediately came to mind...

and as far as insurance companies raising their rates on us for our policies because they were unprofitable with other areas of their business is a KNOWN FACT and an easy google, honestly.

and good morning Navy   very glad to see you back!

Care


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

I agree we need to make health care more affordable and measures to do this should be the FIRST steps taken, before they go off and issue some sort of patch to the problem....And this is not old fashioned, it is just common sense.

fyi-still reading the very long post Navy...


----------



## Nik (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective.  Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in?  Or just the few people who can't afford housing?



It justifies them offering public housing...which oh hey, they already do.

So why can't they offer public healthcare?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

haven't read the link yet, but right now, i totally disagree with you on cutting out the employer's tax deduction for their portion of what they pay for your medical insurance...doing such would reduce the amount of employers covering ones healthcare costs and most people can not afford the 10k or more for insurance for the three to four years before prices would eventually come down, IF AT ALL....because this would make LESS PEOPLE have coverage and not more...that's dreamland if you think it will make more people have coverage imo....but again, haven't read the article yet Navy...

care


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

Virtually all assets in the Soviet economy were owned by the state and controlled by its agents. The government agency Gosplan (Russian acronym for State Planning Committee) drafted the national plan. It defined not only the country&#8217;s investment targets but also precise physical quotas for every enterprise&#8217;s output, the mix of economic inputs (such as raw materials and labor) it was to use, and a detailed schedule for completion. Another government committee fixed wholesale and almost all retail prices. 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - MSN Encarta
But there were more immediate causes for the collapse. In the middle 1980's about seventy percent of the industrial output of the Soviet Union was going to the military. Oleg Gordievsky, a KGB official who defected to Britain, asserted that at least one third of the total output was going to the military. British intelligence could not believe such a high figure but later Western intelligence sources estimated that it was at least fifty percent. One can only imagine what a severe shortages of industrial goods there were for the rest of the economy.
The Economic Collapse of the Soviet Union

Well aside from a movies editorial as to what the C and S words are,  the fact remains  a system of Govt. based on the teachings of Karl Marx was  an abject failure.  I think my original post on the state of the Soviet  medical system would give you some idea of that.  Thats not adapting, thats  taking failed lessons learned in the past and trying to apply them to today.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD.  That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next?  Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT?  Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people?  We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

I can think of several that come to mind at least for those of us that have insurance.  Home, Life, Auto Heath, I would  in my mind call that a much needed service, should  I be required to pay for any one of those things for any reason.  On my car. if it breaks down, it's through my insruance company that I have services that offer tow service.  Its though my insurance company that offer  hotlines for me to call should  I have any questions on medical services.   You see Care ,  I don't see  Insurance companies as the big bad demons that some people see them as. I see them as  companies that need to be regulated yes. I also feel that Congress both Republican and Democrat and done a pretty poor job of it.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective.  Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in?  Or just the few people who can't afford housing?
> ...



Maybe because they have seen what happens to areas with public housing ?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...

the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....

so, they truly have a model where they don't have nearly the costs of taking care of us as is implied....they only cover the, for the most part, healthy...the elderly costs have been put on the tax payer with medicare....  adding more healthy for the most part, people to the insurance rolls will reduce the cost of health care, if done right...  i can see the business model where this actually is feasible....  

I could sell a shoe for less money, if I bought a lot more of it to sell in the same period of time and still come out, equally profitable....

selling 100 prs with $4 bucks profit

or 

Selling 200 prs with $2 bucks profit

6 or one half dozen...I made my profit goal.

NOT that I am all set on Obama's plan....I honestly don't know enough details and would need to spend a day or two or three really analyzing it.....

All I am saying is that it is feasible, that health care insurance costs, would reduce if we added 40 million to the insurance rolls...

care


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...
> 
> the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....
> 
> ...



And you will get what you pay for.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....*a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....*



Not to mention begat us taxpayers and our children this wonderful monstrosity too boot





*Source:* The Real National Debt


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

First things first Care thank you for the welcome back ,   I posted the article to show you that the idea of promoting competetion to drive down costs  is not a new one and is actually a good idea.  However, the mechanics of it when it comes to taking away deductions  if my post led you to believe I agreed with that part of it you would be wrong on that score and if it did you have my apologies.  As for other post on caps on liability awards  thats kind of a sticky area. 

A divided Texas Supreme Court found March 6 that an exception to the state&#8217;s malpractice damages cap that allows further recovery when a liability insurer negligently fails to settle claims, applies only to insurers and does not apply to physicians.  

The high court explained that, under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act of 1977 (Act), one provision caps the liability of physicians above a fixed amount, and a second provision creates an exception to this cap when the physician&#8217;s insurer has negligently failed to settle a claim within the limits of the physician&#8217;s liability policy. 
Texas high court says liability cap applies to physicians, not insurers - - Medical Economics | Practice Management

The Ohio Supreme Court this week upheld the constitutionality of a state law that limits the amount of damages that may be awarded to injured persons who win product-liability lawsuits.
In a 5-2 opinion, a majority of the Court ruled that caps on non-economic and punitive damages do not violate a right to jury, due process, equal protection, or the single subject rule of the Ohio Constitution.

The law in question was enacted by the Ohio legislature in 2004 to address concerns of the business community about excessive product liability and general business lawsuits. The business groups argued that Ohio's liability climate was detrimental to Ohio's economic vitality.

The Supreme Court's decision in Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson affects cases involving allegedly defective products and medications, as well as wrongful-death, injury and employment-discrimination claims. It does not apply to medical-malpractice lawsuits, although the General Assembly also has capped damages in those cases.

"While this opinion does not relate directly to the OSMA-championed medical liability reform, it is notable that the Ohio Supreme Court deferred to the General Assembly in upholding the business product liability tort reform package," said Tim Maglione, Senior Director of Government Relations for the Ohio State Medical Association.

"The Court's reasoning in this case should bolster the argument that medical liability caps are also constitutional," Maglione added

Cap On Product Liability Lawsuits Upheld By The Ohio Supreme Court - 12/28/07 - Ohio State Medical Association

What I'm sure will happen in a case like this is you will have a sure fire constitutional fight on your hands with the trial lawyers on one side and the Doctors on the other.  It appears though with the exception if Oregon from what I can see that these caps state by state seem to found constitutional.  It does appear that exceptions have  been made in some cases.  From my reading this is a state issue, but my suggestion was that under the commerce clause where an insurance provider who provides services state to state congress does have the authority to regulate them as they see fit.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I can think of several that come to mind at least for those of us that have insurance.  Home, Life, Auto Heath, I would  in my mind call that a much needed service, should  I be required to pay for any one of those things for any reason.  On my car. if it breaks down, it's through my insruance company that I have services that offer tow service.  Its though my insurance company that offer  hotlines for me to call should  I have any questions on medical services.   You see Care ,  I don't see  Insurance companies as the big bad demons that some people see them as. I see them as  companies that need to be regulated yes. I also feel that Congress both Republican and Democrat and done a pretty poor job of it.



for your car, call a towing service or two to get the best price to tow it....?

for your medical questions or services, call the hospital or your doctor...  if on Medicare, you call them, I suppose....the elderly love their medicare and for the most part, don't seem to object to it, what so ever....  

The insurance company is the middle man, taking his take for nothing other than processing paper....

Hey, i am sitting here, with my one and only visit to the doctor in the last 5 years, while paying around $10 grand a year for mine and matt's insurance coverage including his employer's share, and my Insurance company is refusing to pay the bill...it has been a year and a half and they now have gone to a collection agency, which will force me and matt to pay the $1800 dollars that the insurance company should have paid, (so that we don't ruin our credit rating), according to how we read the policy....

I don't adore the health insurance companies as you do....

Care


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> But what exactly do you suggest Navy?  What is your sollution to the Health care problems we have in this country? Care



Golly... let's see, what could POSSIBLY be the solution to the problem which comes from government intervention, massive regulatory and liability expense?

Hmm...  

MAN!  Now that is a REAL TOUGHY...

MAYBE the solution would be to QUADRUPAL DOWN on the amount of government intervention, regulatory and liability expenses?

HEY! What if we completely SCRAP ANY System except one the government provides...  

Gee...  I dunno, something about that just doesn't seem to serve reason... what did I miss I wonder?

Do you see anything that I might have missed Care?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

I just don't understand the logic there, by adding  40 million people to health insurance you reduce costs?  Reduce costs to whom?  When you mandate these 40 million people to medical insurance  what you will have is an increased tax burden because over 90% of them will be on tax payer funded  healthcare so how does that reduce costs when it adds to the deficit a tremendeous amount of money that it is cannot bare.  Still further, by mandating an additional 40 miilion people Care  in what way does that effect the costs of  service delivery?  Of course the Hospitals and Doctors who provide the services will be paid and thats a good thing, however, that doesn't reduce the fee's in which they charge for services.  The fact is the only thing that will bring down costs are competetion and  reducing the number of unpaid claims together without forcing the  taxpayers to share the burden of paying for it.  Make no mistake, if this plan goes through, you and I will share a responsibility for  these unpaid claims that in California alone just for illegal immigrants last year was 1.5 billion dollars.  You see Care if we don't solve the whole issue and thats costs, and do so in a manner that is *within the framework of our form of Govt. *we will never solve this problem and will remain a burden on the taxpayers and this nation for yers to come.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> First things first Care thank you for the welcome back ,   I posted the article to show you that the idea of promoting competetion to drive down costs  is not a new one and is actually a good idea.  However, the mechanics of it when it comes to taking away deductions  if my post led you to believe I agreed with that part of it you would be wrong on that score and if it did you have my apologies.  As for other post on caps on liability awards  thats kind of a sticky area.
> 
> A divided Texas Supreme Court found March 6 that an exception to the states malpractice damages cap that allows further recovery when a liability insurer negligently fails to settle claims, applies only to insurers and does not apply to physicians.
> 
> ...



But if they can cap insurance liability, then they certainly can cap the prices charged by hospitals and doctors for care....isn't this the slippery slope you and others don't want to see because it stifles advancement and the free market to work on its own?

Also, still without fully reading everything yet as a caveat, haven't I read that the states that put caps because it was suppose to lower their health care costs, have seen absolutely no results in such? 

Care


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD.  That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next?  Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT?  Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people?  We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?




Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights.  You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

I can understand Care where people form their opinions on things I really can.  I am sorry that your having to go through the things you are going through.  I may suggest though that if your insurance company is not paying what they agreed to pay as part of your converage, then perhaps you need to take this to the State  board that regulates them.  One other suggestion is that I do understand that from a financial point of view its hard, so perhaps you send whatever you can to the institution you are obligated to even if its a dollar to show you are making a good faith effort to pay.  That would take away any ground they have to stand on.  The main thing here is keep your chin up and work those phones till you find the right person in your state Govt. to bring your insurance company in line .  Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not a big fan of the insurance companies, however , I'm a lot less of a fan of  my Govt. being the  ultimate decision maker and decider in a private enterprise.  The fact is this business needs reforming and the Govt. is the right vehicle to reform it. it is not the right vehicle to own it or be in the same business as it is trying to reform,.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > First things first Care thank you for the welcome back ,   I posted the article to show you that the idea of promoting competetion to drive down costs  is not a new one and is actually a good idea.  However, the mechanics of it when it comes to taking away deductions  if my post led you to believe I agreed with that part of it you would be wrong on that score and if it did you have my apologies.  As for other post on caps on liability awards  thats kind of a sticky area.
> ...



Ahh... so you're saying that YES!  the solution to the problem which is caused by government intervention into the private market is to QUADRUPAL DOWN... and INCREASE THAT INTERVENTION EXPONENTIALLY!  

Yessir... the history of price fixing has ALWAYS worked... why there's NO EVIDENCE in history which discredits the idea that government should legislate what someone can charge for a service...

In effect meaning that government can cause the COSTS of a delivering a given product to  skyrocket, and turn around and LEGISLATE THAT THE PERSON THEY JUST SCREWED WITH REGILATORY EXPENSES, CANNOT INCREASE THE PRICE THEY CHARGE TO DELIVER THAT SERVICE...

Golly... I wonder what could POSSIBLY BE WRONG WITH THAT CALACULATION?


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I just don't understand the logic there, by adding  40 million people to health insurance you reduce costs?



That's big gub'ment think, you need a lobotomy to understand it, perhaps if we get socialized medicine the taxpayers will fund one for you so you can understand the logic of why you needed the taxpayers to fund one for you.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD.  That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next?  Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT?  Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people?  We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?
> ...



ok, i'll buy that...but don't be complaining when the government caps all medical prices that can be charged, even for the private sector, outside of medicare....as some will do, and scream foul....or cap what insurance companies can charge us....


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Equality for All
> In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individuals medical expenses and health care.
> 
> With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors and nurses incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.
> ...



Oh blah... I'm not even going to discuss this further until something is actually ON THE FLOOR and open for debate by the legislators because you people continue to believe that "universal healthcare" is what is being proposed, but it is not.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?

To help the insurance industry? 

Or to lower "we the people's" health care insurance costs....?

If it is the latter did prices go down for your health insurance?

Because the profits certainly went up for the Insurers....


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Equality for All
> ...



That's wise time management and saves energy at the same time .


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I can understand Care where people form their opinions on things I really can.  I am sorry that your having to go through the things you are going through.  I may suggest though that if your insurance company is not paying what they agreed to pay as part of your converage, then perhaps you need to take this to the State  board that regulates them.  One other suggestion is that I do understand that from a financial point of view its hard, so perhaps you send whatever you can to the institution you are obligated to even if its a dollar to show you are making a good faith effort to pay.  That would take away any ground they have to stand on.  The main thing here is keep your chin up and work those phones till you find the right person in your state Govt. to bring your insurance company in line .  Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not a big fan of the insurance companies, however , I'm a lot less of a fan of  my Govt. being the  ultimate decision maker and decider in a private enterprise.  The fact is this business needs reforming and the Govt. is the right vehicle to reform it. it is not the right vehicle to own it or be in the same business as it is trying to reform,.



Where there is a contract, which is the case in a insurance policy; the policy holder is rightfully entitled to expect services set forth by that policy.

Care is here to project that she has a policy which provides for services and is not recieiving those services...  the odds are that care has a policy which specifically precludes those services; which provided for a reduced premium which she enjoys; but now finds that she needs those services and comes to demand that such be provided.

IF Care, in fact, IS holding a policy which provides for treatment which is being otherwise denied, then the insurance board is a good place to start; with that being a place to go on the way to court...  A country civil suit will get that ball rolling and shouldn't take much time.  The judge will read the relevant points in the contract policy and if it provides for the treatment, he'll rule in her favor.

Not a complicated issue...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Equality for All
> ...



That is a close to delusion as one gets...  She's either a liar or a fool and as is often the case, one doesn't stem far from the mutual root of the other.

All one needs to know about what the legislation will bring is WHO IS WRITING IT... where the author is those who have historically advocated for greater government intervention in the markets, it is a certainty that the legislation will provide for greater government intervention in the market...   

And where it's a certanty that the problem is rooted in government intervention...  what more does one need to know, to opposse such?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD.  That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next?  Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT?  Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people?  We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?
> ...



if you limit what someone can be sued for BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE, then this will become a statistical calculation of where they will count on being negligent, while still being profitable and we humans just become numbers...on whether they can afford to let us die or how many of us they can let die through their own negligence, with only having to pay the cap, the calculated risk....they will factor in negligence as an acceptable risk....and not address the actual negligence and why it happens repeatedly with some folks....  

Not knowing what your monetary punishment will be, because every case does not have the same damages is part of the self governess of the free market industries....

This makes them strive for perfection, and running a business without negligence....without having government having to regulate them to the hilt imo...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



One doesn't havbe to limit anything... one merely has to stop playing idiot where it comes to the concept of malfeasance... 

What is HILARIOUS to me, is the advocates of unbridled tort are inevitably advocates of this government healthcare system, which will inevitably require the elimination of any form of tort...  

And this as the average skill sets of physicians and staff decline exponentially and conditions deteriorate... INEVITABLY providing as the STANDARD... EVERYTHING THE IDIOTS CLAIMED TO STAND AGAINST.

It's what they like to call 'unintended consequences', a term they use even when the 'consequences' are an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...
> ...



It's the SAME SHOE, with the same quality...  i can sell 100 pairs at $50, with my profit for each one sold is $4 bucks a pair.... so $400 in profit made...

Or the same shoe, I can sell 200 hundred of them at $40 bucks with a $2 buck profit for each in them, which comes out to $400 in profit made...if both were sold during the same time period.

But yes, i can see how health care may not fit in with normal business theory...as I mentioned earlier, it is not a widget.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Are medicare patients not allowed to be involved in suing if negligence occurred?

Not that I am aware of....

Are citizens with private insurance not allowed to be involved in the tort system?

I guess i don't understand PI?

care


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Healthcare is not a widget... it is a service.  And where that service has a set liability against it, for which it must charge it's customer, before ANYONE providing that service gets paid... BEFORE ANY consideration if given to supply and demand for the UNCOMMON SKILLS of say a neuro-surgeon... or the pristine state of the art facilities... those fixed liabilities come FIRST and ALL other natural considerations are ADDED TO THEM.

The exponential increases in healthcare are directly, exclusively associated with those artificial liabilities induced by government.  Yet you idiots are DEMANDING that GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION; when as Reagan pointed out... *GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!*


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective.  Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in?  Or just the few people who can't afford housing?
> ...


And we all know what a smashing success gubmint housing projects have been!! 

See: Cabrini Green.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

*Oh blah... I'm not even going to discuss this further until something is actually ON THE FLOOR and open for debate by the legislators because you people continue to believe that "universal healthcare" is what is being proposed, but it is not. *

I'm sorry you feel that way Maggie, however, the result and goal is  "Universal Healthcare" even if you don't like the words.  I'm well aware of what is being proposed and  I'm well aware of the so called "public option" !
But a government-sponsored plan would ultimately lead to a government "monopoly" over health care, some conservatives argue, thereby stripping patients of choice.

In a letter to the president Monday, nine Senate Republicans from one of the committees responsible for health care characterized this shift in care as "119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage."

"Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition," the letter says.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has led health care reform in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and introduced the bill now in play, has emphasized his support for a public option but acknowledged in a statement at the bill's release that "much work remains, and the coming days and weeks won&#8217;t be easy."
The HELP committee will begin the "mark up" process of amending the bill on Tuesday and aims to ready the bill for a full Senate vote by the second half of July.

Health Care Reform Enters Critical Phase - CBS News

Heres is another thing to ponder, as well this issue is so important why then is it being rushed? Is it perhaps that the  Votes will not  be there to pass it is it sits around to long and people really begin to understand it is?  Perhaps the reason why people refuse to debate this matter is they see this as an issue that needs to be taken care of  by the Federal Govt. and that every American deserves insurance as a "right" which they clearly do not.  The fact is regardless of how this plan plays itself out, it will add an addintional 2 trillion dollars to the  deficit that this country can ill afford to pay.  That is money you and I will have to borrow from China to pay for healthcare than can be paid for by simply  reforming the industry and not mandating  health insurance.  What do you think the majority of Americans are going to do when the suddenly have to pay a payroll tax on their employee sponsored health insurance to pay for  health care converage for those who  don't want it or are not working to pay for their own?  they will opt to the public health insurance like the rest and you will end up with one insurance entity the Federal Govt.  a.k.a . " Universal Healthcare"  You can choose to call it any slick marketing name you wish, but it is what it is.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?
> 
> To help the insurance industry?
> 
> ...




What's the constitutional authority for issuing parking tickets, or for that matter, what's the constitutional authority for starting a national health insurance program?  If the government only did things that were explicitly authorized by the Constitution, there likely would be no SS or Medicare or educational programs or government loans and many fewer government taxes.  There are many who would think that a good thing, but I don't believe you are one of them.

No one is talking about capping damages for the actual costs incurred, but only for intangibles such as pain and suffering.  How about if instead of talking about capping damages, a law set out a schedule of awards for these damages such as so much for the pain and suffering due to the loss of the ability to walk, or so much for the loss of the ability to speak or have sex, etc.?  Or do you think we should leave the amount of damages for pain and suffering up to how juries feel at the moment?  Without such standards, can juries really provide equal justice, and if it's not equal justice, is it justice at all?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> the result and goal is  "Universal Healthcare" even if you don't like the words.  I'm well aware of what is being proposed and  I'm well aware of the so called "public option" !


A pattern of socialists and their cheerleaders that started back in the 1920s, when the socialist wing of the Democrat Party stole the term "liberal" (which hencetofore meant libertarian) to obfuscate their true aims.

Just as they've sullied and debased the term liberal, to the point that they've now moved to defining themselves as "progressives", we're now getting bullshitter terms like "single-payer" and "universal coverage" to pimp for what boils down to socialized medical services.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

I have  a question  and it's open to any who wish to answer it,  this question is more or less based on something that comes to mind after reading Dudes last post.  It would seem to me that someone who was  truley "liberal"  would want more freedom not less of it or am I mistaken in that assesment? 

6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, *greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives*
liberal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Now given my impression of this, am I wrong in assuming that when one is  willing to give up freedoms they are not "liberal"?  This is not meant as an insullt it's more or less  trying to come to grips with why would can call themselves  "liberal" and yet at the same time wish for someone else to control an aspect of their lives.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?
> ...



Those are good questions....i don't know the answers to....without alot of statistics in front of me to analyze.

I am not certain those types of caps could really be determined because each case would be different...loss of ability to have sex the rest of their lives, for a 20 year old male or a 20 year old female would be different than losing the ability to have sex for a 65 year old man injured or a 65 year old woman injured, ya know?  I mean the younguns lost ability to bear offspring...

I just don't think it should be done...and from all that i have seen, where the juries awarded too much, the system has corrected such, on appeals....

We have test models, in the states that did institute caps in order to reduce health care costs and it HAS NOT DONE SO....

if this truly is the case, then why allow our federal government to get involved at all?  

care


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Like I said, Navy, the socialists in the Democrat Party stole the term back in prohibition era. Hayek had to coin the term "classical liberal" -i.e. libertarian- to make the distinction between the true liberals and the closet statists.

That aside, I use that as an example of how the statist needs to commandeer and fudge the language, in order to con the gullible into believing that they have  the supposed best interests of the proletariat uppermost in their tiny little minds.......Somewhere out in the ether, both Orwell and Rand are giggling their asses off.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

Texas is proof that reasonable medical liability reform can benefit medical providers and the
public alike.
&#8226; With this latest premium reduction, the Texas law will have saved doctors some $380 million in
premium costs. And that&#8217;s just for the 14,500 clients insured by this company.
&#8226; The Texas Medical Liability Trust has approved an average insurance rate cut of 4.7 percent for
2009.
&#8226; Also, the insurer will pay policyholders who renew their policy a 22.5 percent dividend.
&#8226; This will be the fourth straight year the Texas insurer has paid insureds a dividend. It&#8217;s the
largest percentage dividend ever.
Texas has seen its situation turn from one of lawyers suing recklessly to one where medical
providers can do their job without fear.
&#8226; Having access to affordable liability coverage
http://www.hlc.org/090508.pdf

Care here is a little  report from Texas that proves Caps do work when instituted properly.  Little food for thought.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I have  a question  and it's open to any who wish to answer it,  this question is more or less based on something that comes to mind after reading Dudes last post.  It would seem to me that someone who was  truley "liberal"  would want more freedom not less of it or am I mistaken in that assesment?
> 
> 6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, *greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives*
> liberal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
> ...



What health care choices or freedoms do we have now?  Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?

Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here!


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Regardless of what juries award, the actuaries will calculate the probable awards the company will have to pay and weight that number towards the high end in determining what premiums to charge, thus the unpredictability you admire so much will probably result in higher premiums in the future.  Lawsuits, like computers, telephones and paper clips, are a cost of doing business and that cost will always be passed on to the consumer.  It's not the insurance company that pays your award, it's all the people who buy insurance from them in the future, and that is true whether it is a government insurance program or a private company.

One could also argue that the proper function of civil courts is to dispense justice, and it is the function of state medical boards and legislatures to set standards of conduct and practice.  If different juries would give different awards for the same cases, then the courts are not dispensing equal justice, sometimes the plaintiff being wronged and sometimes the defendant, and justice would be a random result.  

If your goal is really to improve the quality of care received, you should write to your state legislator and ask him/her to get your state medical boards to collect data on all providers and make it easily available to consumers so that if you need an angioplasty or a colonoscopy you can easily see which doctors and hospitals have the lowest incidence of mishaps.  This would punish providers whose standards are lax, reward those whose standards are superior and probably improve the quality of care overall, resulting in fewer lawsuits and probably lower insurance premiums.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

On a side note Dude,  I just cannot understand  and I suppose it's because i'm not part of the enlightned crowd, why anyone for any reason would willingly give up any freedom.  I do believe your right though Orwell and Rand are most likely havnig a good laugh about now..  In this debate  I look at this quote  a lot , I don't know why, but it really has at least in my mind a lot of impact on this  healthcare debate. 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" B. Franklin


----------



## DavidS (Jun 11, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> HEY! What if we completely SCRAP ANY System except one the government provides...



Very true, Publis... we've seen this in history before. Like when the Post Office started offering overnight packages - they stamped out the competition and... oh hold on, FedEx is here.

Sorry about that. Yes, as I was saying. When States began offering health insurance, all private health insurance companies went out of business and... oh hold on, I forgot to pay Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Anyway, right then, as I was saying, it's a terrible thing when the government imposes regulations on private corporations! Holy shit! I just saw a huge car accident involving an SUV and a Minivan! Both were loaded with children, but because the car companies designed their cars to withstand and reduce injury likelyhood to the vehicles occupants, all of the kids are fine. Phew. As I was saying, it's absolutely terrible that the government regulates private compa... oh hold on, I just got a call from my mother that her flight arrived on time. Thank God the airlines made sure to check the airplane for any mechanical defects. Anyway, where was I? You know, all this talk has given me such a headache. I need an Advil. Thank God drug companies can't claim that a drug that's unsafe for you, is really safe. 

Sorry, PubliusInfinitum, what were you saying? Oh right government intervention in our private lives is terrible. Oh, hold on, I just got a call from my father letting me know that he's coming to see me too. Thankfully, even though he's retired, he's able to afford a plane ticket because of social security and his kidneys are doing better today because of medicare.

Yes, now, where was I?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> What health care choices or freedoms do we have now?  Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?
> 
> Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.
> 
> I'm just playing devil's advocate here!



Maybe for starters you could free yourself from the notion that "health care" means, as a matter of course, that a third party paying for services rendered is the ideal model.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > What health care choices or freedoms do we have now?  Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?
> ...



Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.


Yeah...I know....Freedom and responsibility are such batty ideas.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



  Fee for service?   _Those_ were the days!


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



How would that work?  you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?


----------



## Valerie (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...




Good point care, that's why they created the "risk pool", etc.  It's a complicated issue.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

Valerie said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



complicated and nearly as expensive.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> How would that work?  you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?


The same person who foots the bill for your car and your house.

Aside from that, presenting the extreme case as the norm is as intellectually disingenuous as it gets.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Of course, caps could be determined.  Consider that by your values, the loss of the ability to have sex has a much greater value to the younger man than to the older man, but are you just imposing your values or do you have reason to believe so?  Suppose the younger man had a relatively weak sex drive and anxiety issues associated with sex that greatly diminished his enjoyment and that he had other issues that made it unlikely he ever would have become a parent or would want to be; and suppose the older man seeing his powers diminished found each found each sexual experience especially precious and each a reminder of his youth, and that not being about to have sex now made him feel cut off from much of his earlier life.  If you were sitting on both juries, you would have awarded the younger man too much and the older man too little for the actual pain and suffering they were experiencing.  

Surely, Congress or a state legislature could devise a formula that would base the award on age and the ability to produce an offspring and deliver judgments just as unjust as you would have.  

Healthcare costs are going to continue to increase no matter what we do because our population is aging and because newer technologies and medications to extend life and function are nearly always very expensive.  Health insurance will either go down or go up more slowly if awards are capped, but this will happen slowly over time because premiums are determined largely on the basis of a moving average of past cost experiences and it will take time before the lower costs of litigation significantly effect that average.


----------



## Valerie (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > How would that work?  you are 20 years old, you just start your health care savings account and you are diagnosed with cancer or are in a terrible car accident...you don't have enough money in your health savings account to pay for your own health care...who then foots the bill?
> ...




The extreme cases are merely a reality to consider, she didn't say it was the norm, speaking of disingenuous.....?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



70 years without it for one, and 20 years without it for the other, with viagra.

and then you could have the Nun losing the ability to have sex or a eunich's loss of ability to have sex where it might not be that detrimental....

i don't like it that our government would determine this and for whom?  we the people, or for their insurance buddies funding their campaigns and reelection?  Smells corrupt, and will be corrupt and lesser penalties will probably be put in for key negligences, by the people whose pockets are being lined with gold....from the people or corporations or companies who would benefit most....

you are way more trusting of our government than i would have ever thought!???

care


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Valerie said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


They are also the rarest of occurrences, to be filed under hyperbole.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

All Massachusetts residents are required to maintain health insurance. Health care reform works to improve the cost and quality of health care.

Health Care Reform - Mass.Gov
Financial Responsibility/Deeming Section 1902(a)(17)
To authorize Massachusetts to use for plan groups and individuals whose eligibility is
determined under the more liberal standards and methods, eligibility standards and
requirements that differ from those required under title XIX. This authority specifically
exempts the Commonwealth from the limits under section 1902(a)(17)(D) on whose
income and resources may be used to determine eligibility unless actually made
available, so that family income and resources may be used instead.
To authorize Massachusetts to deem income from any member of the family unit
(including any Medicaid eligible member) for purposes of determining income.
To authorize Massachusetts to provide coverage to the medically needy without offering
a spend-down for pregnant women, parents, children ages 0-18, and the disabled, and to
offer 1-month spend downs for people receiving community-based services as an
alternative to institutionalization, and non-institutionalized persons who are receiving
personal care attendant services at the onset of waivers.
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/eohhs/healthcare_reform/medicare_waiver_list.pdf

Health care reform in Massachusetts has led to a dramatic increase in the number of people with health insurance. But there's an unintended consequence: A sudden demand for primary care doctors has outpaced the supply.
Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage : NPR

MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.
Mass. healthcare reform is failing us - The Boston Globe

I had the opportunity to sit here and listen to Obama's town hall and can tell you that  when you mandate no pre-exiting condition and along side a public option for health insurance one thing your not going to get is  healthy competetion.   This is a cost issue, and the cost issue needs to to be addressd.  I did like the idea though of allowing for  small business and individuals to pool together or create co-ops to buy healthcare as long as it's privately run.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...





Do you really think 20-30 year olds, who won't have much money in a health care savings account, don't have athletic accidents, or car accidents or don't get sick and that this is some sort of rarity?

Granted, the older you get, the more sickly one gets in general, but accidents to those between 20-30 are not that rare, and cancer isn't either....i've known a number of 20-30 yr old women who had gotten breast cancer, and that's just my immediate circle of friends and coworkers, and 3 guys that were in devasting car accidents, and 2 that had diabitis, one that was epileptic...a cousin....all in their youth....

maybe you are much younger than me and haven't seen as much as me to know any better, i'm not certain, but honestly, shit happens, when least expected...and it isn't as much of an exception as you may think, though perhaps it did appear to you that i meant that it happened all the time, i didn't....i was merely asking a question.

  3 days in the hospital, depending the circumstances could be $25k to $125k....  15 years ago, for a minor female surgery, i was in the hospital for 2.5 days and the bill was $25,000....today that would certainly be $60-70k....

i'm not shooting the idea down that ridding ourselves of insurance companies and paying for our own health care directly to those who provide it, isn't the way to go, or wouldn't reduce our costs, due to our individual involvement of knowing what things cost and rebeling against the costs if too high and losing the cost of the middleman we now pay....i just wouldn't know where to begin, or how to do it, where a huge donut whole of exceptions weren't present.

care


----------



## rayboyusmc (Jun 11, 2009)

I know this will come as a suprise to many on the right, but a single payer healthcare system like Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare are not SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.  The doctors etc are not employed by the government.

It isn't a lot different than what we have now with the government already reimbursing the Humana's etc of the country for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients and retired military.

This is just another chicken little the socilized sky is falling bullshit.

If we can pay less and get care par with other real industrialized countries, why are you wetting your pants?


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> All Massachusetts residents are required to maintain health insurance. Health care reform works to improve the cost and quality of health care.
> 
> Health Care Reform - Mass.Gov
> Financial Responsibility/Deeming Section 1902(a)(17)
> ...



his whole plan is one you would like since the private sector insurers are the key, it seems?

not me though, i'd rather see the insurance companies, out of the picture....


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> *Do you really think 20-30 year olds, who won't have much money in a health care savings account, don't have athletic accidents, or car accidents or don't get sick and that this is some sort of rarity?*
> 
> Granted, the older you get, the more sickly one gets in general, but accidents to those between 20-30 are not that rare, and cancer isn't either....i've known a number of 20-30 yr old women who had gotten breast cancer, and that's just my immediate circle of friends and coworkers, and 3 guys that were in devasting car accidents, and 2 that had diabitis, one that was epileptic...a cousin....all in their youth....
> 
> ...


Sure they do...Happens all the time in ski country.

Yet, many states prevent their residents from shopping around out of state for bare-bones or cafeteria-style coverage, and_* force*_ them to purchase full coverage policies that cover things like drug treatment, chiropractic, and port wine stain removal.

Once again, gubmint is meddling in the marketplace, and exacerbates the problem....Now, we're supposed to believe those dummies are going to make things better and less expensive??

Wanna buy a bridge??


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

*Noooooooooooo* not you Care,  I'm teasing you I realize your not a fan of the insurance companies it's fine. .  Seriously though on the other matter, you really should if your having that much difficulty with one, as someone suggested  a nice civil suit might get their attention.  I was under the impression that  Maine has some sort of state sponsored Insurance program though?  I could be wrong there because the last time I was there was many years ago and was a small stop-over.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > *Do you really think 20-30 year olds, who won't have much money in a health care savings account, don't have athletic accidents, or car accidents or don't get sick and that this is some sort of rarity?*
> ...



those dummies are the ones that have to address the problem with the lack of competition in insurance companies licensed in each state...i agree this is part of the problem, but i think the states should address this themselves, i hate to see the fed usurping the States...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> those dummies are the ones that have to address the problem with the lack of competition in insurance companies licensed in each state...i agree this is part of the problem, but i think the states should address this themselves, i hate to see the fed usurping the States...


First of all, how does creating yet another massive bureaucracy and levying zillions in new taxes make that already bad  situation any better??

Secondly, there would be no usurpation of the states by invoking the interstate commerce clause. In fact, this might be the first instance in decades where it was properly applied and enforced.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> *Noooooooooooo* not you Care,  I'm teasing you I realize your not a fan of the insurance companies it's fine. .  Seriously though on the other matter, you really should if your having that much difficulty with one, as someone suggested  a nice civil suit might get their attention.  I was under the impression that  Maine has some sort of state sponsored Insurance program though?  I could be wrong there because the last time I was there was many years ago and was a small stop-over.


what state agency would even handle something like this....?

maine has insurance, individuals can buy, if their employer does not have it.  They would buy in to a private plan, offered by 3 different insurance companies, i believe...in the form of a group plan at group rates which are lower.

IT is means tested, where the poorest get some assistance to pay for that plan...

the means testing is unrealistic, most people still can't afford it and Maine is still right up there with the states who have the least amount of citizens with health coverage.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

we do need more doctors and nurses and hospitals to be more competitive, and to handle the boomer implosion!

maybe the ama needs to lower their standards or reduce the cost of schooling for docs so more with smarts could enter in to the field?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



In fact, if the government did impose caps, it would benefit you, not the insurance company because whatever the insurance company has to pay out today in settlement, it will get back tomorrow in the form of higher premiums, and that's true whether it's a private in insurance company or a government run insurance company.  

Suppose I sue a doctor or hospital in your area and win a large settlement.  Liability/malpractice premiums in your area or that specialty will be increased so the insurance company can recover its loss.  The doctor/hospital will try to charge more to cover that increase, and if they can, that will cause your health insurance premium to go up.  If they can't charge more, then they will reduce services, such as getting you out of the hospital or the doctor's office much faster than they otherwise would or by refusing to treat certain high risk cases to bring their insurance premiums down.  One way or another you're going to pay for my big settlement.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> we do need more doctors and nurses and hospitals to be more competitive, and to handle the boomer implosion!
> 
> maybe the ama needs to lower their standards or reduce the cost of schooling for docs so more with smarts could enter in to the field?


How would turning every doctor into a defacto bureaucrat make them want to go through the decade plus it takes to become an MD??

You've heard that Canada has been hemorrhaging doctors and nurses to America, haven't you??


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

Home Page : Bureau of Insurance

Try there  Care I don't know if that will help your situation, but its a start.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > we do need more doctors and nurses and hospitals to be more competitive, and to handle the boomer implosion!
> ...



we are the last nation left for them to run to that doesn't have a form of socialized medicine, if that changes they may all go home and end up helping their own countries get repopulated with doctors?

I wouldn't shun so quickly, making medical schools more affordable and abundant.  

There is a huge influx of patients on the horizon and the supply of them, of Doctors, is limited, prices will sky rocket without a greater supply to meet the demand....  we can figure this out and do what needs to be done....

care


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> *we are the last nation left for them to run to that doesn't have a form of socialized medicine,* if that changes they may all go home and end up helping their own countries get repopulated with doctors?


That oughtta tell you something.

If they go back to where they came from, what's to guarantee that they'd continue in medicine??



Care4all said:


> I wouldn't shun so quickly, making medical schools more affordable and abundant.
> 
> There is a huge influx of patients on the horizon and the supply of them, of Doctors, is limited, prices will sky rocket without a greater supply to meet the demand....  we can figure this out and do what needs to be done....
> 
> care


Name the last....no, the _*FIRST*_ time _*any*_ monopoly, let alone one run buy gubmint, made _*anything *_more affordable and abundant.

Take your time on that one.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > *we are the last nation left for them to run to that doesn't have a form of socialized medicine,* if that changes they may all go home and end up helping their own countries get repopulated with doctors?
> ...



monopolies, duopolies etc are already illegal in this country, no?  i don't know if i am necessarily saying that the only way we can dump the insurance companies, the middle man, is by having a government run, single payer plan....i am not ruling it out, but surely there are other ways to go about this whole approach that should be considered as a viable option?


----------



## NO!bama08 (Jun 11, 2009)

.....and now your "president" is perfectly willing to cut back on weapon systems and the military in general that keep our country safe from idiots like Kim Mentally Ill in order to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens and others who sit on their ass and make babies all day.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> monopolies, duopolies etc are already illegal in this country, no?  i don't know if i am necessarily saying that the only way we can dump the insurance companies, the middle man, is by having a government run, single payer plan....i am not ruling it out, but surely there are other ways to go about this whole approach that should be considered as a viable option?


The entity that has the monopoly on the proactive use of  physical force, that being gubmint, is alive and well.

Do you really want a monopolist picking and choosing which medical services you will receive, and how much, if any??


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Equality for All
> ...



No evidence to back it up?  Hello?!  The documented history of the former Soviet Union is "no evidence", while we're supposed to endorse WHO statistics (which measure healthcare specifically on whether or not socialism is evenly distributed) as though they're holy gospel carved by the finger of God?  Tell me, do the lobotomy scars itch at all?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Funny...none of those provide comparisons.
> 
> By the way...even with a "financial crisis", NHS is still significantly cheaper than US healthcare.
> 
> ...



Oh, goody.  It's cheaper.  Just what we were all dying for:  bargain-basement, generic, store-brand healthcare.  I know when I'M shopping for a surgeon, I always go with the lowest price from the guy who graduated Guatemala Tech, instead of the more expensive doctor who graduated Harvard Med.

Be penurious with YOUR health, all right?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> When I see my medicare and medicaid clients getting the same quality of healthcare as those who have private insurance coverage, then I'll buy into the whole ridiculous lie about nationalized health care being somehow better.
> 
> The government should NOT be involved in our medical care. They shouldn't be involved in our treatment, they shouldn't be overseeing the medical professionals in any but the most standard sense. They certainly shouldn't have control over our treatment...and that's where this is going.



I liked how Nik pissed and moaned about unsubstantiated "pronouncements", and then produced a whopper of one in the form of "government health care will be better quality".  I want to see conclusive proof of THAT assertion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Our healthcare issues are a direct response to our insistence that people do NOT have to be responsible for themselves. When we started peddling that b.s., we started having health care problems.
> ...



So instead of merely providing some sort of community safety net - which doesn't have to be government-run, whatever you think - for those who do hit catastrophes, you want to provide a government-run safety hammock for everyone to lounge in because there's a small possibility that they MIGHT have a catastrophe someday.

I love that "don't even try because it might go wrong" attitude.  Very positive, very uplifting.  Don't quit your day job to become a motivational speaker, okay?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The problem of rasing HC costs will not be solved by changing the system OR by keeping it the same, either
> ...



Dear God.  "Make" them.  That just says it all right there.

And no, their services do NOT "mostly consist of charging vast amounts".  You sound like the high school drop outs who get a job at McDonald's and think they're the ones earning all the money for their bosses.  That attitude reveals nothing except that you're one of the "hired hordes" who's never had the firsthand chance to learn what bosses actually do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> Underfunded means they can't raise taxes fast enough to pay for them.
> 
> Because people were lied to about it the real cost.
> 
> Take note of that.



I find it hilarious that Nik likes to tout these systems on one hand for being "so much cheaper" than the US's, and then calls them "underfunded" on the other hand.  Gee, so if they were "properly funded", wouldn't that mean they'd cost a lot more than they do now?  Is it at all possible that if they were "properly funded" and providing services as good as the US's, they might also cost as much per capita?  Y'think?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> The drones' tunnel vision is that "someone" has to do "something" and that "someone" is only government.



Well, as long as the "someone" who has to do "something" about their screwed-up lives is the government, it isn't THEM.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Market forces have had nothing to do with the direction of health care costs in the past 10 years.
> ...



And bariatric surgery, which is only covered by some health insurances, and frequently requires you to go to a surgeon you don't want to use or to pay for it yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > so what do you suggest are the messures that need to be taken to truly address the _*outrageous amounts of money *_we spend on healthcare and why do you think your messures will trally work?
> ...



I'm with you on that.  I want to know when it became received wisdom that a lot of money spent on healthcare was automatically a bad thing.  From the standpoint of the economy, it sure isn't.

But really, people always hear "healthcare" and automatically think about things like vaccinations and emergency care and treatment for chronic conditions like diabetes.  They never consider that that total amount spent on healthcare in the United States every year is made up quite significantly of discretionary spending.

The US population is aging, and despite all the media horror stories of old people having to eat dog food to afford medication (yeah, like dog food is so frigging cheap), the vast majority of our nation's wealth is in the hands of senior and near-senior citizens.  And old people like to spend their money on health care.  They buy vitamins, and they pay for diagnostic screening tests, and they do any number of other things in order to remain healthier and more active later and later in life.  And that's hardly a bad thing any way you look at it.

It also isn't just old people.  Whether the left likes it or not, health care is a luxury item as much as it is an essential, in the same way that food can be bare subsistence to stay alive or gourmet five-star dining.  The wealthier and more prosperous the population is, the more discretionary income it has, the more secure it feels financially, the more money it is going to spend on health care.  By this token, "outrageous" sums spent on health care in the US is a GOOD thing, not a bad one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i don't think one procedure or the cosmetic industry of health care can compare with the nonelective, health side of it....
> ...



And like all of those things, a smart, mature person does their health care shopping BEFORE they need the items, rather than waiting until the need is at the crisis stage.  I don't wait to choose a doctor until I've already got cancer.  I found him and established a relationship with him now, while I'm in good health and have time to do so carefully.



Care4all said:


> health care choices is not deciding what shoes to buy and whom to buy them from and for what outfit to where them with....ones health is not a proverbial widget bought and sold in capitalism imo...it just doesn't fit the pure capitalistic mold, how could it?





Dude said:


> Says who??



They always use this argument, as though necessity and importance somehow negate economics and take something out of the realm of "commodity".  The truth is that the only things that aren't commodities are things that no one wants for any reason, like dog vomit, or things that exist in such abundance and availability that everyone can have as much as they want whenever they want, like air.  "Commodity" does not mean "luxury" or "non-essential", whatever leftists think.  The most profitable and stable businesses to be in traditionally are those that provide things that people will always need, like food or housing or utilities.  Social studies teaches us that the three main needs of mankind are food, clothing, and shelter.  So if the importance and urgent necessity of these does not preclude them from being commodities, why should health care be different?



Care4all said:


> i am not against capitalism, i made my living in that arena, the corporate end of it and i just don't think dealing with ones health care is done in the same manner or under the same conditions as every day shopping.
> 
> care





Dude said:


> Your limiting beliefs are your problem.



Nicer than the answer I would have given.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Fraulein Hilda said:


> You must eat every day.  Does capitalism not work for that?  Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?



We should stop giving them ideas.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Fraulein Hilda said:
> 
> 
> > Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective.  Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in?  Or just the few people who can't afford housing?
> ...



Comparable to the public housing they offer?  They already do.  It's called "Medicaid".  What YOU want is comparable to them taking possession of every house and apartment in America and then assigning them to people based on some bureaucrat's concept of what they "need".

Oh dear GOD, I've got to stop giving you people ideas.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > monopolies, duopolies etc are already illegal in this country, no?  i don't know if i am necessarily saying that the only way we can dump the insurance companies, the middle man, is by having a government run, single payer plan....i am not ruling it out, but surely there are other ways to go about this whole approach that should be considered as a viable option?
> ...



I already do....i have the one insurance policy that matt's work offers, that most certainly tells me what i can do and what they will pay for it, if anything at all, and whom has to administer it to me....

yeah, my choices are fabulous in the Private sector...NOT!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2009)

rayboyusmc said:


> I know this will come as a suprise to many on the right, but a single payer healthcare system like Medicare, Medicaid and TriCare are not SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.  The doctors etc are not employed by the government.
> 
> It isn't a lot different than what we have now with the government already reimbursing the Humana's etc of the country for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients and retired military.
> 
> ...



Hey, dumbass.  Doctors and nurses and such are employed by the people paying for their services, as are all people who work in a service industry.  If I am paying for their services out of my pocket, they are employed by me.  If the only entity paying for those services is the government, who are they employed by?

This is not rocket magic, although it may be confusing to an unskilled, minimum-wage drone who only knows about employment by way of filling out an application and punching a time clock for Burger King.


----------



## brownlou (Jun 11, 2009)

Something is wrong in this country with healthcare and the insurance companies and there is no denying it.

I do not know what the answer is but tell me this...what other industry makes more money if the services a customer pays for are denied?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I already do....i have the one insurance policy that matt's work offers, that most certainly tells me what i can do and what they will pay for it, if anything at all, and whom has to administer it to me....
> 
> yeah, my choices are fabulous in the Private sector...NOT!


Well, aiin't  trying to get a third party to pay your bills a bitch??

What makes you think that a federal gubmint, that has _*never ever*_ made anything they've involved themselves with either less expensive or more efficient, is going to do any better of a job??

A scant few examples would suffice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 12, 2009)

brownlou said:


> Something is wrong in this country with healthcare and the insurance companies and there is no denying it.
> 
> I do not know what the answer is but tell me this...what other industry makes more money if the services a customer pays for are denied?



Well, I hate to tell you this, but insurance isn't quite like a simple commodities transaction.  The insurance company is gambling that you will pay more in premiums than they will have to pay out in claims.  Most times, that's the case and sometimes, it's not.  So it's analogous to casinos, which are betting that you and all the other customers will put more into the slot machines over time than they will ever have to pay out in jackpots.  And in both cases, they're right.

And that is one other industry that makes more money if it never has to pay anything out.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 12, 2009)

i don't think casinos are betting that they come out cecilie, they KNOW by the way they set their slots that they WILL come out ahead, no risk involved...well there is, but it is a calculated risk.

and they also KNOW that the way they set their games like roulette, adding a double zero and the payout always being slightly less than the numbers you can play....that they WILL come out ahead and when they add 5 deck of cards to play black jack instead of one, with rules of when you can split or hit or double down etc is all measurable mathematically to guarantee them profit come year end when it's all said and done....

and you are right, that the insurance business is similar to casinos, in the manner that they have (mathematically calculated their) risks so that they do make a profit in the end, after the profit and losses are added up...and both of them, usually make a fairly healthy profit.

the health insurance companies have some gvt help and protection as well....the gvts limit healthcare providers within their states which only keeps prices high for the favored few offering insurance within their states, due to the lack of competition.

in a pandemic, our government, would for the most part, be paying for the vaccines instead of the cost hitting them for the people they insured...

in a national catastrophe, our gvt would give assistance to them as well, if many many people were injured, where normally insurance would pay for the person insured...

a bunch of little things our governments do to protect them from getting hit with full health care catastrophes that could bankrupt them....


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 16, 2016)

Nik said:


> Funny...none of those provide comparisons.
> 
> By the way...even with a "financial crisis", NHS is still significantly cheaper than US healthcare.
> 
> ...



Is


Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




That's a guess on your part.

They calculate all the time.  All the time.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 16, 2016)

Care4all said:


> i don't think casinos are betting that they come out cecilie, they KNOW by the way they set their slots that they WILL come out ahead, no risk involved...well there is, but it is a calculated risk.
> 
> and they also KNOW that the way they set their games like roulette, adding a double zero and the payout always being slightly less than the numbers you can play....that they WILL come out ahead and when they add 5 deck of cards to play black jack instead of one, with rules of when you can split or hit or double down etc is all measurable mathematically to guarantee them profit come year end when it's all said and done....
> 
> ...



And yet they still go bankrupt.


----------



## dblack (Jun 16, 2016)

And the trees are all kept equal ...


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 18, 2016)

How come nobody ever publishes the financials for big insurance ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 18, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> How come nobody ever publishes the financials for big insurance ?



The financials, such as . . . what?  Specifically what information about insurance companies are you looking for?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 21, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > How come nobody ever publishes the financials for big insurance ?
> ...



Basically, their income statements.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 26, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Well, what have you done to get them?  Googled and figured because they weren't on the Net in intricate detail, that must mean they're a big secret?  All publicly-traded corporations have to disclose their finances to government regulatory bodies, among others, which means they're available to investors and potential investors, which means you can get them if you ask appropriately.  Did you not know that, or do you just think everything that isn't spoonfed to you is, perforce, a secret?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jun 26, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I asked that question in response to the constant claim that Health Insurance Companies make "obscene profits".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 26, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



I think "obscene" is definitely in the eye of the beholder.  It's really only a mindset found in leftists and people who've been infected with left-think, and what it really means is "You are in a business I do not approve of, and making more money than I think you should have because I don't approve of you".  I don't know that there's ANY amount of profits that insurance companies could make that their detractors wouldn't find "obscene".

Personally, I have nothing against insurance companies.  I read the specifics of the policy very carefully, and as long as they follow through on their obligations with a minimum of bullshit, we're all good.  I'm not one to pitch a hissy when I find out that they don't cover something, because I'm not one to be surprised by what's not covered at the moment it actually comes up.

I've never really had a huge medical insurance claim, so I don't know if my insurer would balk at paying for it or not.  They've never given me any guff about anything that's been recommended by my doctors, I know that, even when it involves a "pre-existing condition".  Maybe that's because my pre-existing conditions aren't terribly expensive ones.

By the way, does anyone know why health insurance will cover Viagra and dermatology treatments and even some cosmetic, elective surgeries, but won't cover hearing aids?  Apparently, erections are a necessity, but being able to hear is a luxury.


----------

