I am just Dumbfounded.

[daedong]

I have nothing to say. But I am interest in listning to any debate.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/health-care-reform/index.html

 

[SShepherd]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/jarvis15.html

 

[mak2]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/jarvis15.html

Oh that is just an outstanding argument. Lets see, little girl that cant breathe, greedy insurance company, and your argument is that PBS should not exist anyway. In the words of ESPN, "ComON Man".

 

[fogtender]

If they want true health care reform, then do TORT reform. So far any bill that would address shutting down the Lawyers has been scrapped.

Then allow the insurance companies to practice in all 50 States and shut down the ability for them to buy out each other to narrow the choices down, they either go and do a good job or fail.

The rest will get done one step at a time and health care costs will drop due to no more bogus billion dollar class action lawsuits that only benefit the Lawyers. Currently they are cutting the head off the goose with the golden eggs and will shortly wonder what happened to all the money.

The Government has no business running anything that is a business except what they were set up to do in our Constitution, and that is War and International Trade.

They can kiss my butt on "Well the other Countries have it", they are not the U.S., nor have/had our ability to lead the World in a host of projects that they can't even fathom. We are being "Neutered" and won't be able to do for ourselves shortly.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

Oh that is just an outstanding argument. Lets see, little girl that cant breathe, greedy insurance company, and your argument is that PBS should not exist anyway. In the words of ESPN, "ComON Man".

That girl was covered through state plans so don't say she "can't breathe". Her parents made some bad choices in how they handled their insurance and their lives. Maybe if her dad grew-up and got a real job instead of trying to be a rock star then they could afford some real insurance. It is probably easy to find "problem cases" in every system.

Of course, the parents are in no way responsible for letting their existing insurance coverage lapse when they already had a kid with a serious health issue.

It is safe to say that "NOW" on PBS is a very left leaning show and it is hard for some people to take it seriously. I know I don't.

 

[mak2]

Weak, try again.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

Insurance costs about $50-$60 billion a year, Baker estimates. As for what’s often called “defensive medicine,” “there’s really no good study that’s been able to put a number on that,” said Baker.

If they want true health care reform, then do TORT reform. So far any bill that would address shutting down the Lawyers has been scrapped.

Then allow the insurance companies to practice in all 50 States and shut down the ability for them to buy out each other to narrow the choices down, they either go and do a good job or fail.

The rest will get done one step at a time and health care costs will drop due to no more bogus billion dollar class action lawsuits that only benefit the Lawyers. Currently they are cutting the head off the goose with the golden eggs and will shortly wonder what happened to all the money.

The Government has no business running anything that is a business except what they were set up to do in our Constitution, and that is War and International Trade.

They can kiss my butt on "Well the other Countries have it", they are not the U.S., nor have/had our ability to lead the World in a host of projects that they can't even fathom. We are being "Neutered" and won't be able to do for ourselves shortly.

 

[fogtender]

Weak, try again.

The health economists and independent legal experts who study the issue, however, don’t believe that’s true. They say that malpractice liability costs are a small fraction of the spiraling costs of the U.S. health care system, and that the medical errors that malpractice liability tries to prevent are themselves a huge cost– both to the injured patients and to the health care system as a whole.

“It’s really just a distraction,” said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth.” “If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe we’d be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So we’re not talking about real money. It’s small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.”

Insurance costs about $50-$60 billion a year, Baker estimates. As for what’s often called “defensive medicine,” “there’s really no good study that’s been able to put a number on that,” said Baker.

Don't buy it....

If you have a heart condition, you don't start with cutting off the feet... Sure, you cut off the feet, it takes a load off the Heart, but it isn't the problem or the cure.

Insurance is what people have to afford health care, if they can afford it then they don't have it.

You have to address the basis of the problem first then go after the side affects.

I have a number of friends that are Doctors, they are paying almost two hundred thousand dollars a year for malpractice insurance with no claims against them. They are considering getting out of the Doctor business.

Basically, if you have no doctors, you simply don't have health care, no matter how much money you have or great insurance policies.

 

[mak2]

I work with hundreds of doctors from all over the world, not a single one is Canadian.

 

[mak2]

Washington, D.C., October 20, 2009—Enrollment in both new and existing U.S. medical schools continues to expand to meet the nation's need for more doctors, according to data released today by the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). First-year enrollment in the nation's medical schools rose this year by 2 percent over 2008 to nearly 18,400 students.

I cant copy two things at once, be right back.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

I work with hundreds of doctors from all over the world, not a single one is Canadian.

They're all over the place here. Maybe you live somewhere that is "undesirable".

Have you checked with all the doctors. Us Canucks are pretty sneaky. Most people are surprised to find out I'm Canadian.

 

[mak2]

another one of those dang social medicine things has subsidized doctors since I was a small child.

Blame the baby boomers. Since 1965, the federal government has subsidized medical residencies through Medicare. To grow the population of doctors in the 1970s, Congress approved funds for additional places. The boomers who flooded into the profession back then, and who now represent one-third of the medical establishment, are starting to retire. That hasn't stopped the ranks of doctors from growing, even on a per capita basis. But the rate of that growth is expected to shrink considerably over the next decade as the number of retirees increases.

 

[mak2]

They're all over the place here. Maybe you live somewhere that is "undesirable".

Have you checked with all the doctors. Us Canucks are pretty sneaky. Most people are surprised to find out I'm Canadian.

I thought of that after I said it. We need a big ass fence up north too.

 

[jpr62902]

I have a number of friends that are Doctors, they are paying almost two hundred thousand dollars a year for malpractice insurance with no claims against them. They are considering getting out of the Doctor business.

Ok, so what you're really saying is that the cost of malpractice insurance is too high (and therefore the problem). Why is that?

Well, damages (costs) from malpractice are very high, for starters.

Second, insurance companies have to make money, too. How do they do that AND keep premiums affordable? They invest. Guess what happens when the stock market tanks? Premiums go up (regardless of whether claims paid are less than premiums collected).

Finally, a large number of doctors insist on insurance coverage that allows them the final say as to whether settlements of malpractice claims are reached. That's expensive.

Tort reform ain't the panacea you believe it to be.

 

[fogtender]

Ok, so what you're really saying is that the cost of malpractice insurance is too high (and therefore the problem). Why is that?

Well, damages (costs) from malpractice are very high, for starters.

Second, insurance companies have to make money, too. How do they do that AND keep premiums affordable? They invest. Guess what happens when the stock market tanks? Premiums go up (regardless of whether claims paid are less than premiums collected).

Finally, a large number of doctors insist on insurance coverage that allows them the final say as to whether settlements of malpractice claims are reached. That's expensive.

Tort reform ain't the panacea you believe it to be.

May not be the final step, but it certainly should be the first one. The costs of everything is based on liabilty costs, those are on top of the services rendered.

The R&D has it's costs as well, but the insurance is always an issue with class action lawsuits by Lawyers whom don't give a rats butt about whether the drugs were or were not doing a job, they file class acton suits for hundreds of millions in claims that the charge their services for which results in little for those that were actually damaged.

 

[mak2]

<1.5%. Yea, that would fix it.

 

[jpr62902]

May not be the final step, but it certainly should be the first one. The costs of everything is based on liabilty costs, those are on top of the services rendered.

The R&D has it's costs as well, but the insurance is always an issue with class action lawsuits by Lawyers whom don't give a rats butt about whether the drugs were or were not doing a job, they file class acton suits for hundreds of millions in claims that the charge their services for which results in little for those that were actually damaged.

You seem to be limiting your focus to class action litigation. What tort reform are you suggesting to cure what socio-economic ill? It seems clear that you, at minimum, want the plaintiffs' lawyers' fees cut by legislation. Is there anything else you're suggesting in your tort reform package?

 

[fogtender]

You seem to be limiting your focus to class action litigation. What tort reform are you suggesting to cure what socio-economic ill? It seems clear that you, at minimum, want the plaintiffs' lawyers' fees cut by legislation. Is there anything else you're suggesting in your tort reform package?

Basic first step is to limit class action lawsuits or get rid of them entirely. If a doctor in fact does damage a patient, then there also should be a limit of that type of lawsuit. One of hundreds of millions of dollars for someone that makes $50,000 a year is a joke, it should be based on what their need is for, then add whatever their average lifespan would be. The cost of care of them and their families should be weighed in to what they could have done for themselves under normal lifestyles.

That would be a first step. Everything is about suing someone, and that has to stop, people need to be accountable for their own actions, like smoking at the gas pumps and then suing because they got burned. Common sense has to start at the bottom.

Health care is no different, the people claiming that lawsuits aren't the problem are more than likely the guys doing the lawsuits. Congress is made up of almost all Lawyers and they don't want to damage their future if politics don't work out.

Then removing the current blocks to where only a few insurance companies can service each state is another block to competition, if all can compete in all states, then the prices are going to come down or they won't sell policies and will go out of business. You also limit the ability of one company buying out another to get rid of competition which is what the Banks have done for the most part and we end up with Mega Banks that don't give a hoot about your little account, just the bogus fees they charge it.

There is a lot of things to make the Health care system better, but it won't happen under the current plans, it is all about making nests for the "Good guys" in Congress and paybacks, pretty much what all the Stimulus bills have been. No new bridges, rail systems and the like that employs people and require maintenance after being built, most of it is going to pay back political favors which is why the unemployment is going up, this little pullback for Christmas hiring is a joke, come December 26th, they will all again hit the streets en-mass. I wouldn't be surprised if the Unemployment isn't about 15% by early February, plus or minus a point.

 

[JEV]

Everything is about suing someone, and that has to stop, people need to be accountable for their own actions, like smoking at the gas pumps and then suing because they got burned. Common sense has to start at the bottom.

BLASPHEMY! You speak like a conservative. Liberals can't have people using common sense and being accountable for their own actions. If they start doing this, they won't need liberals to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. What next? You would probably have them going out and looking for a job to get off the welfare roles? Yeah, right. Like that will ever happen...

 

[jpr62902]

BLASPHEMY! You speak like a conservative. Liberals can't have people using common sense and being accountable for their own actions. If they start doing this, they won't need liberals to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. What next? You would probably have them going out and looking for a job to get off the welfare roles? Yeah, right. Like that will ever happen...

How ironic. Fogtender's talking about not holding doctors fully accountable.

 

[fogtender]

How ironic. Fogtender's talking about not holding doctors fully accountable.

How do you figure? They don't pay the lawsuit, their insurance does. Never said don't sue doctors... I said use due reason such as what did the injured person do if there was an injury.

If you are fifty, and a doctor damages you, and you make $50,000.00 a year and you are going to be normally gainfully employed until you are 70, then you muliply that times twenty years as part of the settelment, then you figure out what the costs of any medical that will be needed to ensure that isn't an issue for the remaining years for them and their family. It many be several million, but clearly not 500 million.

So where do you figure I let them off the hook if they are doing a bad job?

 

[fogtender]

BLASPHEMY! You speak like a conservative. Liberals can't have people using common sense and being accountable for their own actions. If they start doing this, they won't need liberals to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. What next? You would probably have them going out and looking for a job to get off the welfare roles? Yeah, right. Like that will ever happen...

Yeah, your right, having people being accountable for their own actions is kinda lame....

The "Left" clearly won't tolerate it.

Pretty much was why Stalin and his group are still popular with the same folks that want it all for "Free", didn't work then, but who cares about the details like paying for it.......

 

[jpr62902]

Basic first step is to limit class action lawsuits or get rid of them entirely.

Why? What is the (or your) problem with class actions?

If a doctor in fact does damage a patient, then there also should be a limit of that type of lawsuit. One of hundreds of millions of dollars for someone that makes $50,000 a year is a joke, it should be based on what their need is for, then add whatever their average lifespan would be. The cost of care of them and their families should be weighed in to what they could have done for themselves under normal lifestyles.

Are you aware of any malpractice awards in the "hundreds of millions of dollars" range for a single plaintiff? If so, please cite references. I'm really curious about this one.

That would be a first step. Everything is about suing someone, and that has to stop, people need to be accountable for their own actions, like smoking at the gas pumps and then suing because they got burned. Common sense has to start at the bottom.

Has anyone ever been successful in a lawsuit claiming damages for burns stemming from smoking at a gas pump? If so, and again, I'd like to see a reference.

Health care is no different, the people claiming that lawsuits aren't the problem are more than likely the guys doing the lawsuits. Congress is made up of almost all Lawyers and they don't want to damage their future if politics don't work out.

First, MAK2 (and I) have both posted references noting that malpractice costs amount to only 1.5% of healthcare costs. How is 1.5% "THE" problem?

Second, almost half of Congress are republicans. Not all lawyers are plaintiff lawyers. Some actually practice in other areas of the law.

Then removing the current blocks to where only a few insurance companies can service each state is another block to competition, if all can compete in all states, then the prices are going to come down or they won't sell policies and will go out of business. You also limit the ability of one company buying out another to get rid of competition which is what the Banks have done for the most part and we end up with Mega Banks that don't give a hoot about your little account, just the bogus fees they charge it.

I think you might be on to something, here. Let's remove some of the legislative protections that allow intra state quasi monopolies by health insurance companies. Open up the fields of competition.

There is a lot of things to make the Health care system better, but it won't happen under the current plans, it is all about making nests for the "Good guys" in Congress and paybacks, pretty much what all the Stimulus bills have been. No new bridges, rail systems and the like that employs people and require maintenance after being built, most of it is going to pay back political favors which is why the unemployment is going up, this little pullback for Christmas hiring is a joke, come December 26th, they will all again hit the streets en-mass. I wouldn't be surprised if the Unemployment isn't about 15% by early February, plus or minus a point.

I dunno about this paragraph, but a 50% jump in unemployment in just over a month would be a remarkable event.

 

[jpr62902]

How do you figure? They don't pay the lawsuit, their insurance does. Never said don't sue doctors... I said use due reason such as what did the injured person do if there was an injury.

If you are fifty, and a doctor damages you, and you make $50,000.00 a year and you are going to be normally gainfully employed until you are 70, then you muliply that times twenty years as part of the settelment, then you figure out what the costs of any medical that will be needed to ensure that isn't an issue for the remaining years for them and their family. It many be several million, but clearly not 500 million.

So where do you figure I let them off the hook if they are doing a bad job?

This is in the ballpark as to how damages are calculated for the injured patient. Who said anything about 500 million?

 

[fogtender]

This is in the ballpark as to how damages are calculated for the injured patient. Who said anything about 500 million?

No, that is suppose/should to be how it is figured.

The lawyer will argue in front of a Jury that the injured was going to be the next Bill Gates and was on the edge of becoming the next billionaire with his new widget that will now never happen...

The Jury has time and again believed the Lawyer who gets at least a third....

How could you take some guy in a wheel chair and not believe his Lawyer...

But that is only one small part of the issues.

 

[fogtender]

Why? What is the (or your) problem with class actions?



Are you aware of any malpractice awards in the "hundreds of millions of dollars" range for a single plaintiff? If so, please cite references. I'm really curious about this one.



Has anyone ever been successful in a lawsuit claiming damages for burns stemming from smoking at a gas pump? If so, and again, I'd like to see a reference.



First, MAK2 (and I) have both posted references noting that malpractice costs amount to only 1.5% of healthcare costs. How is 1.5% "THE" problem?

Second, almost half of Congress are republicans. Not all lawyers are plaintiff lawyers. Some actually practice in other areas of the law.



I think you might be on to something, here. Let's remove some of the legislative protections that allow intra state quasi monopolies by health insurance companies. Open up the fields of competition.



I dunno about this paragraph, but a 50% jump in unemployment in just over a month would be a remarkable event.

To answer all your questions in a nutshell, I don't believe in Socialism. Which is what you are clearly arguing for.... Can't change your mind, and it will have to wait until our system collapses under the weight of debt before you realize that all the wrong things were done in the name of....

"Hi, I am from the Government and here to help"

Name one Government program that has worked and not at the edge of some kind of bailout....

 

[jpr62902]

No, that is suppose/should to be how it is figured.

The lawyer will argue in front of a Jury that the injured was going to be the next Bill Gates and was on the edge of becoming the next billionaire with his new widget that will now never happen...

The Jury has time and again believed the Lawyer who gets at least a third....

How could you take some guy in a wheel chair and not believe his Lawyer...

But that is only one small part of the issues.

Are you just gonna continue to rest on your misconceptions or post some truth to bolster your posts?

 

[fogtender]

Are you just gonna continue to rest on your misconceptions or post some truth to bolster your posts?

Why, you aren't interested in common sense....

Can you name one Government program that is not on the edge of some kind of bailout or scheduled for one.

That should answer your own questions. Health care the way they are doing it, won't be any different.

 

[fogtender]

Here is a tad bit to tide you over....

Printable VersionTORT REFORM KEY TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE
Hatch Points to New CBO Analysis of Medical Malpractice WASHINGTON – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, today received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in which they updated their analysis on the potential budgetary effects of tort reform proposals aimed at limiting the costs related to medical malpractice. CBO was responding to Hatch’s rigorous dialogue with them regarding tort reform during the health care reform debate throughout this year.

“I think this response from the CBO confirms that there is a growing problem regarding the costs of health care lawsuits,” Hatch said. “In years past, the CBO mainly focused on the cost doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums and did not adequately address the tendency of doctors to use ‘defensive medicine,’ which does little to promote patient health and serves only to help doctors avoid being sued.”

A strong proponent of tort reform, Sen. Hatch has long said that by making some simple changes to our tort system, including caps on noneconomic damages and other commonly-proposed measures, we could reduce the cost of health care services. The CBO found that by instituting prudent tort reform measures, federal spending would be reduced by $41 billion over ten years and the federal deficit would decline by $54 billion.

Senator Hatch also noted that “I think that this is an important step in the right direction and these numbers show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policy-makers. Unfortunately, up to now, that has been all the President and his Democratic allies in Congress have been willing to provide on these issues. I look forward to having a continued comprehensive dialogue on this critical issue with CBO.”

The full letter is attached here.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/inde...lease_id=39fae4d4-1b78-be3e-e060-b8c3e7468926+

 

[jpr62902]

Why, you aren't interested in common sense....

Can you name one Government program that is not on the edge of some kind of bailout or scheduled for one.

That should answer your own questions. Health care the way they are doing it, won't be any different.

Not only am I interested in common sense, I'm its number one fan.

You, on the other hand, have suggested that victims of medical malpractice are getting $500,000,000.00 verdicts for their troubles and that such awards (though fictional) are the bain of our healthcare system. Ahhhhh. More irony.

Then you switch to government programs criticisms. Huh? I thought we talking about tort reform?

 

[jpr62902]

Here is a tad bit to tide you over....

Printable VersionTORT REFORM KEY TO AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE
Hatch Points to New CBO Analysis of Medical Malpractice WASHINGTON – Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, today received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in which they updated their analysis on the potential budgetary effects of tort reform proposals aimed at limiting the costs related to medical malpractice. CBO was responding to Hatch’s rigorous dialogue with them regarding tort reform during the health care reform debate throughout this year.

“I think this response from the CBO confirms that there is a growing problem regarding the costs of health care lawsuits,” Hatch said. “In years past, the CBO mainly focused on the cost doctors’ malpractice insurance premiums and did not adequately address the tendency of doctors to use ‘defensive medicine,’ which does little to promote patient health and serves only to help doctors avoid being sued.”

A strong proponent of tort reform, Sen. Hatch has long said that by making some simple changes to our tort system, including caps on noneconomic damages and other commonly-proposed measures, we could reduce the cost of health care services. The CBO found that by instituting prudent tort reform measures, federal spending would be reduced by $41 billion over ten years and the federal deficit would decline by $54 billion.

Senator Hatch also noted that “I think that this is an important step in the right direction and these numbers show that this problem deserves more than lip service from policy-makers. Unfortunately, up to now, that has been all the President and his Democratic allies in Congress have been willing to provide on these issues. I look forward to having a continued comprehensive dialogue on this critical issue with CBO.”

The full letter is attached here.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/inde...ease_id=39fae4d4-1b78-be3e-e060-b8c3e7468926+

Finally. An attempt at provenance. BRB .......