[Skell]

I'd rather have a system where even if I'm denied, I can still purchase what services I need out of pocket. So, thanks but no thanks.

Yeah we have that. Its great.

[paraclete]

If it's so great why does Obama want to change it. Could it be that not all are as privledged as yourself and cannot afford the charges.

[Skell]

If it's so great why does Obama want to change it. Could it be that not all are as privledged as yourself and cannot afford the charges.

Psst paraclete... I'm from Australia.
I was talking about our system and options.

I agree though and it has been my point to Elliot previously. If it is so perfect then why is it that change is even being debated?

[tomder55]

If it is so perfect then why is it that change is even being debated?

The strawman argument is that since we oppose a massive overhaul of the system then we think the system needs no tweeking ,revisions and reform. That is not true and is in fact a canard. All of us opponents of the massive shift towards a state take over of more than a 10th of the GDP have given on various postings any number of alternative reforms we'd like to see.

If it's so great why does Obama want to change it. Could it be that not all are as privledged as yourself and cannot afford the charges.

Clete ;you have a two tiered system as both you and Skell described. How is it that you can afford that supplemental ;and if you can then why can't most of the people in America also afford it ?

We are not talking here about a huge percentage of the people who fall through the safety net. The 46 million number often cited is another canard. But let's assume that number is accurate . That is 15 % of the population who's needs we have to address. That in my opinion is not a crisis worthy of a complete dismantling of the current system and replacing it with a Fabian style takeover .

Obama is our Clement Attlee .His "change " will destroy us in less time than it took the Labour Party fabians to bring down the Brits.

[ETWolverine]

Psst paraclete... I'm from Australia.
I was talking about our system and options.

I agree though and it has been my point to Elliot previously. If it is so perfect then why is it that change is even being debated??

Several reasons.

1) No system is perfect. There are 10 million people (3% of our population) that really are uninsured for long periods through no fault of their own. There are improvements to the system that can be made in order to cover these people. WHAT those improvements should be is debated.

2) The costs of health care are on the rise. There needs to be debate on how to control those costs. How those costs should be controlled without limiting service and accessability should be debated.

But the real reason that this issue has come up is because Obama is a Marxist. His father was also a Marxist (one of the architects of the Kenyan economy... and look how well that system's working), and the apple don't fall far from the tree. Obama isn't interested in reforming health care. He's interested in the government TAKING OVER health care BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS BETTER HOW TO TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE THAN THE PEOPLE. THAT Is the reason that this is being debated now. There is no other reason.

Want proof?

For years we've been debating ways of lowering health care costs. The topic most often talked about as a way to do so is tort reform. By some measurements, effective tort reform could lower medical costs by as much as 60%. There have been other ideas bandied about as well... the list that I mentioned earlier in this thread is a pretty good list of possible fixes, all of which have been debated and continue to be debated.

Obama has not picked up on a single one of them. His FIRST solution, and the only option he has been willing to look at, is nationalizing health care. He has no other options on the table. If his goal was to reform health care, any and all options would be open for discussion. But his goal, based on his own actions, is not reform but rather a Marxist takeover of the health system.

So in answer to your question, the reason that the system is up for debate is not because there's an insurmountable problem with the system. It's because of the President's political agenda.

Elliot

[excon]

For years we've been debating ways of lowering health care costs. The topic most often talked about as a way to do so is tort reform. By some measurements, effective tort reform could lower medical costs by as much as 60%.

Hello again, El:

So, you're back on the tort reform bandwagon, huh? Ok, let's do it...

You read about the guy galveston mentioned that went in to have his gall bladder removed, but they took off his legs instead.. The way it is NOW, he could SUE his doctor, and sue him SO BIG that the doctor will never be able to practice medicine again.

THAT is the reason we have things called punitive damages... It's to PUNISH. As a right winger, you should be familiar with the idea of punishing bad people. Plus, the guy with no legs will be able to pay for his care for the rest of his life - and that's the way it SHOULD be. You don't agree.

With tort reform, the guy can sue, but it won't do the job it was designed to do, if you cap the awards. Worst of all, the offending doctor will just go on practicing medicine... You might even be referred to him, or your kids. IS that what you want??

excon

[tomder55]

You know as well as I do that when push comes to shove ;and the gvt (God forbid) is managing the whole show... that they will institute tort reform in a nanosecond when it makes their promise to control costs mute.

You want to know why so many tests are perfomed needlessly... CYA in case the patient sues.
You want to know why doctors compensation seems so high ? They have to pay a fortune in liability insurance to cover frivilous suits.

Cap damages to reasonable levels and the person wronged will still be compensated . Award health care providers wrongly accused in frivilous cases appropriate damages and you will see these cases ,that really only benefit ambulance chasing slip and fall lawyers ,reduced .

[excon]

they will institute tort reform in a nanosecond when it makes their promise to control costs mute.

You want to know why so many tests are perfomed needlessly .....CYA in case the patient sues. You want to know why doctors compensation seems so high ? They have to pay a fortune in liability insurance to cover frivilous suits.

Hello again, tom:

I don't think we disagree... too much anyway...

We already have a gatekeeper that stops frivolous lawsuits already. They're called judges. Unless, you think dumbo judges just opens the coffers to the big bucks for anybody simply because they stubbed their toe... The idea that they do is frankly, ridiculous.

I know, I know, you're going to bring up the Anomaly of the lady who spilled hot coffee and made jillions... But, if that was the NORM, you wouldn't have to go back so many years to find an example. You should find plenty in your daily newspapers, shouldn't you? That is, if these frivolous lawsuits are as prevalent as you suggest.

So, me thinks that you've been hornswoggled by the health insurance industry once again, who want to charge doctors zillions for coverage that frankly isn't needed. Your support for the insurance companies is still evident. I don't know why.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

So, you're back on the tort reform bandwagon, huh? Ok, let's do it....

You read about the guy galveston mentioned that went in to have his gall bladder removed, but they took off his legs instead.. The way it is NOW, he could SUE his doctor, and sue him SO BIG that the doctor will never be able to practice medicine again.

THAT is the reason we have things called punitive damages... It's to PUNISH. As a right winger, you should be familiar with the idea of punishing bad people. Plus, the guy with no legs will be able to pay for his care for the rest of his life - and that's the way it SHOULD be. You don't agree.

With tort reform, the guy can sue, but it won't do the job it was designed to do, if you cap the awards. Worst of all, the offending doctor will just go on practicing medicine... You might even be referred to him, or your kids. IS that what you want???

excon

First of all, you're in favor of PUNISHING doctors who screw up by accident, but not punishing MURDERERS and RAPISTS by putting them to death.

Ok, then. I guess there's SOME logic to your position, but I sure can't tll what it is.

Now, let's talk about tort reform.

At what point did I say I wanted to cap awards? Or stop doctors who are screwups from being properly disciplined?

As I have said MANY TIMES BEFORE, my goal in tort reform is to eliminate the frivolous cases and allow the legitimate cases to go through. To that end, I have in the past, and will now again, propose the idea of civil grand juries. Just as criminal grand juries make sure that frivolous criminal cases don't go forward, a civil grand jury would do the same for civil cases. By allowing a grand jury to determine whether a case has merit BEFORE it ever gets to trial... before it ever gets before a judge... we can eliminate the court costs and the legal fees associated with long, drawn out cases that have no merit, but which must still be defended against.

Furthermore, if we legislate a "loser pays" law that requires the loser to pay the legal fees, it will limit the number of frivolous suits filed in the court system.

Between these two actions, you could eliminate the vast majority of frivolous cases that make up the majority of medical malpractice cases. And you could do it without damaging the ability of those who have legitimate cases to move forward.

THAT'S TORT REFORM THAT MAKES SENSE. It lowers legal costs associated with malpractice cases (and by extension, it lowers medical overhead associated with malpractice insurance and legal defense fees) without hurting those with legitimate cases.

So please, don't try to put your own, tired interpretation of "tort reform" on me. It doesn't apply, and you know it.

Finally, I had no idea that the purpose of a civil lawsuit was to punish. I always thought that civil lawsuits were there to help those who have been damaged recoup their losses. That's a new legal concept for me.

Probably for every attorney, judge, and law professor in the USA as well.

Go know... you are again leading the way with new interpretations of the law. First with the 4th and 14th Amendments. Then with the 9th Amendment. And now with the purpose of the civil court system.

I swear, you are a legal mind like no other, with your unique and new interpretations of legal concepts.

Forget Sotomyor. We should get Obama to appoint excon to the Supreme Court!! His unique interpretations of the law are like nothing anyone else has ever seen before.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Getting back to the original post in a way, Naked Emperor News has uncovered some interesting comments by Obama from an interview with Air America’s Randy Rhodes in November 2004, transcribed by Hotair.

OBAMA: “When you rush these budgets, that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read them –”

RHODES: “Fourteen pounds, it was.”

OBAMA: “Yeah, it gets rushed through without any clear deliberations or debate, then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean, you remember there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.”

I guess Obama really is more like Bush than we all previously thought. Which reminds me, I kind of miss the Bush days, at least he was omnipresent in the media every waking hour of every day.

[excon]

First of all, you're in favor of PUNISHING doctors who screw up by accident, but not punishing MURDERERS and RAPISTS by putting them to death.

Ok, then. I guess there's SOME logic to your position, but I sure can't tll what it is.

Finally, I had no idea that the purpose of a civil lawsuit was to punish. I always thought that civil lawsuits were there to help those who have been damaged recoup their losses. That's a new legal concept for me.

Hello again, El:

I don't know where you get THAT stuff. Oh, I don't think rapists and murderers should be put to death, but I have no problem with 'em spending their entire life in the slam. Whatever made you think I was a softy?

Oh, I know. It's because I don't think they should put people who smoke dope in jail... Or is it because I don't support the death penalty, that means I think doctors should get away with maiming people??

Yes, I can see how your logic works.

In terms of the NEW legal concept I'm about to teach you, you don't have to thank me. We have things called damages, and they're designed to make people whole. Then we have these things called PUNITIVE DAMAGES, and they're designed to PUNISH - hence the word "punitive". Punitive damages are added to the compensatory damages.

For a guy who wants tort reform NOT to know that, is pretty scary indeed.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I don't know where you get THAT stuff. Oh, I don't think rapists and murderers should be put to death, but I have no problem with 'em spending their entire life in the slam. Whatever made you think I was a softy?

The part about "I don't think rapists and murderers should be put to death".

Yep, yer a softy.

Oh, I know. It's because I don't think they should put people who smoke dope in jail... Or is it because I don't support the death penalty, that means I think doctors should get away with maiming people??

Yes, I can see how your logic works.

No you can't. You can't even see how YOUR logic works.

You seem to interested in punishing people for mistakes, or even for just being successful (Get the doctors if they screw up, get the insurance companies, get the pharma companies, get the oil companies, they all make too much money by doing their jobs), but not for crimes they commit (let dope dealers, users and traffikers go, stop the war on drugs, let the terrorists go, cops are racists but terrorists are innocent).

Yep... that's logical.

In terms of the NEW legal concept I'm about to teach you, you don't have to thank me. We have things called damages, and they're designed to make people whole. Then we have these things called PUNITIVE DAMAGES, and they're designed to PUNISH - hence the word "punitive". Punitive damages are added to the compensatory damages.

For a guy who wants tort reform NOT to know that, is pretty scary indeed.

Excon

Punitive damages... yep. Got it.

Therefore the purpose of civil cases is to punish...

Right.

OK.

Whatever.

Try taking a law class.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again, El:

I thought I made it clear. Some people, you got to spell stuff out.

There are TWO types of awards in lawsuits. One is compensatory, and the other is punitive. Punitive damages are NOT awarded in every case. Nope, they're their to PUNISH, as the name suggests, and they're only applied when the defendant has shown a need to BE punished.

So, when a doctor cuts off a mans legs instead of taking out his gall bladder, you think it's a MISTAKE. You think that the doctor simply made a miscalculation. You don't think he's responsible for NOT reading stuff he clearly was supposed to read... He just made an innocent mistake, and shouldn't be punished at all.

Dude!

You think he should be able to CONTINUE to practice, quietly, right on YOUR street, with a sign on his door saying accepting new patients... I understand...

Like I said, for a guy who wants to reform the tort system to NOT know that stuff is remarkable.. But, NOT knowing stuff has never stopped you before.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I thought I made it clear. Some people, you got to spell stuff out.

There are TWO types of awards in lawsuits. One is compensatory, and the other is punitive. Punitive damages are NOT awarded in every case. Nope, they're their to PUNISH, as the name suggests, and they're only applied when the defendant has shown a need to BE punished.

So, when a doctor cuts off a mans legs instead of taking out his gall bladder, you think it's a MISTAKE. You think that the doctor simply made a miscalculation. You don't think he's responsible for NOT reading stuff he clearly was supposed to read... He just made an innocent mistake, and shouldn't be punished at all.

Did I say that?

He should lose his license. He should be banned from the practice of medicine. If there is evidence that he was criminally negligent, he should go to jail.

But all of those should be determined IN CRIMINAL Proceedings, not in civil court.

Civil court was created for one purpose and one purpose only. To make sure that the victim is fairly compensated for his pain and suffering and his financial losses.

PUNITIVE damages have no place in a civil court system. The fact that activist judges and lawyers came up with a way of punishing people when the criminal courts didn't doesn't make it right. Yes, it's done. That doesn't mean that there's a legal justification for it.

Dude!

Dude, yourself.

You think he should be able to CONTINUE to practice, quietly, right on YOUR street, with a sign on his door saying accepting new patients... I understand...

Ahh... typical argument of the leftists. If I am against your actions, I must be against all actions.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. See above.

Like I said, for a guy who wants to reform the tort system to NOT know that stuff is remarkable.. But, NOT knowing stuff has never stopped you before.

Excon

Incredibly, you speak like an expert... but I happen to know that you have no law degree, and have a history of blatantly misinterpreting the law rather often.

Whereas I, as I have said before, am certified right 99.6% of the time. Just like El Rushbo.

Elliot

[Paranoid freak]

Has any non-lawyer ever tried to decipher any bill constructed by Congress? If so, how far did you get? If we continue to elect lawyers to fill all political posts, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. The "Media Darlings" seem to be elected. When did we, as a people, abdicate our opinions to comedians, movie and TV stars, Liberal print and TV reporters?Have we really become such couch potatoes that we spout the Liberals' opinions about the Conservatives' paranoia to the point we have no opinion of our own? The American public needs to find a happy medium. I was thirteen when JFK was assassinated and I remember thinking, at least there would be no nuclear attack on Cuba which could have spelled the beginning of the end for the world at large. JFK's death made him an instant saint much like the accused pedophile Michael Jackson. In what world does the act of dying make you an instant hero? I have nothing personal against President Obama; he has charisma and speaks very eloquently; he is impressive. However, the last time (Carter Admin.) POTUS and Congress had a majority, interest rates went through the roof(I'm talking mortgage & car loans), fuel prices too went through the roof which put us in a serious recession. History! Lets educate ourselves! There must be parity. POTUS is not the king, he is basically a figurehead. The US government has three branches: president, legislative, and the Supreme Court. All Lawyers? Or just a majority? Read a contract sometime and see if you don't need a lawyer to interpret. The National Healthcare Bill, I would venture to say, would be totally unintelligible to not only myself but to the average person (college educated or not). Can anyone put this bill in plainspeak?

[inthebox]

I am no longer disabled and I am too young for Medicare.



I would rather have my money pay for my health care, or for health care for someone working at mimimum wage in Minnesota or Arkansas than to pay for a new, longer yacht, yes. Absolutely. I don't understand why you would argue with that.

The thing is when congress gets a hold of our taxes, they direct where tax money goes to, you nor I can specify where our taxes, our money goes. Do you think congress knows better than you, what to do with the money you earn?

I think this is just common sense, and, yes, having a social conscience, caring about other people. No mystery.



It is well established that 20% to 30% of health insurance premiums do not go to health care. Instead they go to running all these different insurance companies, paying executive compensation, corporate jets, stockholders, etc. The money saved by weaning these guys and eliminating the HUGE bureaucracy that is the health insurance industry would cover all the uninsured in America.

Yes I agree that the anount spent underwriting and fixing the total picture in the favor of the Ins co is unethical. But consider this, in order for many hospitals, Doctors and other healthcare groups to stay in business, they need the higher reimbursement from the private insurance in order to subsidize the lower reimbursement [ many times below the cost of providing the service ] of medicare, medicaid, and charity care


The Obama plan is a compromise plan because the health insurance industry and big pharma (whose interest is different but also opposed to a government plan) have convinced politicians that we can't have single payer. In fact, single payer would cover everyone. And that's what we should be asking for. The reason we don't is that the health insurance industry would go the way of the Dodo bird under single payer and like any group of people with a good thing going, they are fighting for their existence.

As far as I'm concerned, the health insurance industry has had its chance to get it right and they failed. As a friend wrote to me:





It DOESN'T work for 260 million people. Are you saying that even if it did work for those 260 million, we should just blow off the health of the 45 million people who are not covered (where did you get 10 million???)? Are you aware that the uninsured are much more likely to die than those with insurance because they get no treatment or it comes too late to help?



Like I already explained to you, I cannot switch plans under our current system. Obama's plan would force insurers to accept me but they could still charge exorbitant rates. We need single payer, like Canada, the UK, France and other countries that have made the health of their citizens a national priority.



First of all Medicare IS nationalized medicine, but only for the elderly. It's not free market. But you right. It works if you are eligible.

Second, you keep saying I have a choice to go to another insurer even though I've explained that I and millions like me do not in fact have access to this imaginary marvelous free market system that dispenses great health care on demand.

When's the last time you or your partner had a serious illness, wolverine? Do you really know what it's like in the trenches when you are too sick to figure out the system or don't have suction?


I am sure you believe that.



Can you document that assertion? And what do you mean "even" the ones I listed. Those are just the tip of the iceberg, a mere handful of the highest salaries.



That's simply untrue. Government workers make a fraction of what unregulated private executives pay themselves. The top GS ranking, GS 15, maxes out at $145,000.
2009 Government Pay Schedule - GovCentral.com


When you put a ceiling on pay you get what you pay for, look up the Marion Illinois VA and surgeon, malpractice. The VA has trouble recruiting and keeping higher paid specialists and surgeons. Now imagine this throughout the nation.



And why are you defending exorbitant executive compensation? Are you saying that you honestly don't think that $38 million a year could make a difference? One guy's take home could provide coverage for 10,000 young families whose children need vaccinations or whose dads need hernia operations.

I don't think I have to document every single insurance executive's pay and what he spends it on to make my case.


Why insurance execs? why not pro - atheletes or celebrities oe movie stars. Are their 10s of millions a year justified? Why isn't somene like Oprah or Bill Gates income not capped or confiscated for the politburo, oops the politicians, to decide what to do with?



Well it's efficient for the executives.



It is their job to NOT PAY OUT if they can possibly help it. We need a system whose job it is to ensure the health of its citizens.



The EFFICIENT thing to do is to not treat people. Who wants that?

Your government; Look at the British system and dialysis.
The government is about cost effectiveness. Preventive care is cost effective. Per person critical care, cancer care, end of life care is not cost effective. Works ups for rare conditions are expensive. research and development is expensive, technology is expensive. Skilled professionals are expensive.

The opposite side is that the Health insurance co.s want you alive and well to contribute premiums to their bottom line.



This is because they skim high income families who already have huge advantages over the kids left behind in public schools, just as private insurers currently skim middle to high income families with minimal risk of getting sick.



"Total failure" is a gross exaggeration. I say that with some confidence because I was entirely educated in U.S. public schools. Japan and most European countries (if not all) provide universal public education paid for by TAXES. They don't have higher scores on standardized tests because they have private schools. They just have better public schools! They also have universal HEALTH CARE. In Japan it's a mix of public and private. In Europe health care is usually publicly funded. Every country in western Europe has better health statistics than we do in terms of health, longevity, and infant mortality.



I am really unclear what your point is here. If our military were private and run by executives making millions of dollars a year--who pillage their companies to feather their own nests-- and if this private military were operated "efficiently", it would only defend states and industries that were easy to defend in case of war, explaining to California and Iowa that it would InEfficient to defend them. That's what health insurerers now do.

It is clear that there are problems in the current system but is relying on big government truly better?





G&P

[ETWolverine]

Has any non-lawyer ever tried to decipher any bill constructed by Congress? If so, how far did you get? If we continue to elect lawyers to fill all political posts, we have nobody to blame but ourselves. The "Media Darlings" seem to be elected. When did we, as a people, abdicate our opinions to comedians, movie and TV stars, Liberal print and TV reporters?Have we really become such couch potatoes that we spout the Liberals' opinions about the Conservatives' paranoia to the point we have no opinion of our own?? The American public needs to find a happy medium. I was thirteen when JFK was assassinated and I remember thinking, at least there would be no nuclear attack on Cuba which could have spelled the beginning of the end for the world at large. JFK's death made him an instant saint much like the accused pedophile Micheal Jackson. In what world does the act of dying make you an instant hero? I have nothing personal against President Obama; he has charisma and speaks very eloquently; he is impressive. However, the last time (Carter Admin.) POTUS and Congress had a majority, interest rates went through the roof(I'm talking mortgage & car loans), fuel prices too went thru the roof which put us in a serious recession. History! Lets educate ourselves! There must be parity. POTUS is not the king, he is basically a figurehead. The US government has three branches: president, legislative, and the Supreme Court. All Lawyers?? or just a majority? Read a contract sometime and see if you don't need a lawyer to interpret. The National Healthcare Bill, I would venture to say, would be totally unintelligible to not only myself but to the average person (college educated or not). Can anyone put this bill in plainspeak?

You make a great point, PF.

As for whether anyone can put this bill into plainspeak, I recommend that you check out The Heritage Foundation. They seem to have done so, much to the chagrin of the left. When put in plain language that most people can read, it seems that most people who find out what it says end up against it. Big shock.

Elliot

[paraclete]

One point you all seem to miss, you need the government as a regulator and as an insurer of the last resort because no one else has the resources but the government cannot take on that role with out actually organising what goes on. If you had a total free for all, only the very rich could afford medical care, which I gather is increasingly the problem. When a government takes on that role it takes on the responsibility for making sure no one falls through the cracks and someone has to pay for that

Those of us who are the consumers of tax payer funded medicine know we don't get the best care all of the time, but I remember the days when I sat in a doctors waiting room for hours and what we have now is better. Without the government pushing and funding the availability of medical education, checking on the hospitals and keeping an eye on over billing we would have a second rate system