AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

A couple of issues there. Eliminating malpractice might help but probably not.
1. The payouts aren't a large part of the costs of medical care.
2. Malpractice still can result in loss of license so there is no incentive to NOT run tests when failing to do so could result in loss of practice. Krauthammer even admits that this is MORE of an incentive than malpractice is.
3. Arbitration can lead to its own abuse. A major arbitrator for credit card companies recently was prevented from arbitration in Minnesota because they had too cozy a relationship with the credit card companies that paid them and required arbitration in their contracts.The consumer was losing 90% of arbitration because the deck was stacked. Without the ability to take it to court if the arbitrator is biased there is no recourse for the consumers.

As for eliminating the employer based insurance. Everyone knows individual policies are more expensive than group polices. Individual policies also allow the insurance companies to not cover pre-existing conditions. The ONLY way for this to work is strict government control. Everyone must be covered for everything. No limitations for existing conditions. There must be price restrictions. Insurance companies can't price people out of insurance because they are a risk. One possibility that is being talked about is restricting health insurance risk factors to just age and occupation. I would be fine with that but I would bet if it was reality, there would still be insurance companies trying to get around it.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Krauthammer is wrong when he blames medical malpractice lawsuits. They are not behind the rise in costs that we have seen lately, because neither the incidence nor the payouts have risen by any significant amount in the last decade, while health insurance has skyrocketed.

This line -

Quote:

Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year.

'estimates.' That's a useless line, because we have no clue how they are estimating this, and the PRI exists basically to provide talking points for the right-wing on health care and other issues. I also suspect that when you are the patient, you want the doctors to be pretty thorough; we only worry about 'additional, unnecessary tests' when they happen to others. Right?

He also then recommends something which will guarantee that MORE unneccesary tests are performed -

Quote:

The pool would be funded by a relatively small tax on all health-insurance premiums. Socialize the risk; cut out the trial lawyers. Would that immunize doctors from carelessness or negligence? No. The penalty would be losing your medical license. There is no more serious deterrent than forfeiting a decade of intensive medical training and the livelihood that comes with it.

Socializing the risk, first of all - that's basically what the Public Option is. Kraut seems to be a closet supporter.

More important, however, if doctors are to lose their licenses if they are found to commit errors, you don't think that will cause them to order even MORE defensive tests? Losing your license is more serious than your malpractice insurance going up; it's a bigger penalty to the docs. His proposals are sort of contradictory.

I agree that we should break the employer/health care model, but not with what he suggests... but instead socializing the whole thing.

Not a strong piece by Kraut.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

parados, Also group plans averages out the age to arrive at their premium. When companies continues to rotate their employees between the young and old, they get better rates because the average age remains somewhat stable.

That's the way it used to work when I worked in management, and I doubt very much much has changed.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It might sound stupid, but why and how is malpractice connected to health insurance?

Because the threat of lawsuits forces doctors and other healthcare providers to order far more tests and/or procedures than would otherwise be medically indicated. Any doctor who doesn't do this, and misses some rare or uncommon something as a result of it, is subject to being sued. And, if the doctors, hospitals etc. don't settle the suits that are filed are likely to have some idiot jury award an unreasonable and unconscionable amount on the basis that the 'victim' needs it and the 'insurance companies have deep pockets'.

This runs up the cost of both medical care and healthcare insurance to cover it.

And malpractice insurance is exhorbitantly expensive and can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars for doctors who practice certain specialties and this also drives up healthcare costs.

1 Reply

A recent Rasmussen poll on those town hall meetings:

Quote:

Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. voters have a favorable opinion of the people opposing health care reform at town hall meetings now being conducted by members of Congress, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

But 35% view the protesters unfavorably. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure what they think of them.

Given the partisan anger prompted by the town hall meetings, it’s not surprising to see a similar divide in the survey. Fifty-five percent (55%) of Democrats have an unfavorable view of those opposing the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the leaders of their party. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans and the plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either party view the protesters favorably.

Senior Democrats charge that many of the protests at the town hall meetings are orchestrated by special interests, but 49% of voters believe, generally speaking, that the protesting citizens are reflecting the concerns of their neighbors.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) think the protests are phony efforts drummed up by special interest groups and lobbyists. Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/41_view_town_hall_protesters_favorably_35_don_t

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

That only proves that the majority of Americans don't understand our Constitution.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Remember to factor in the Rasmussen +5 "Republican position" bias. That's about how out of line he usually is with all other polling.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Sorry, I'd deleted that question because I found the answer online.

We don't know here such (until now) - neither the sums nor the procedure( medical malpractice like any other malpractice isn't decided by laymen (like a jury or judges) but by [high profile] court-approved specialists).

Thanks for your respond.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I want Obama to fail turning our Constitutional Republic into a statist dictatorship that ignores our Constitution. Obama is currently in the process of doing just that with his Healthcare and Cap and Trade bills..

I want obamacrats to understand that if Obama succeeds in turning our Constitutional Republic into a statist dictatorship, obamacrats are likely to lose as much as will conservatives.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican..

Shouldn't you be at a town hall meeting shouting obscenities at your elected representative?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I want Obama to fail turning our Constitutional Republic into a statist dictatorship that ignores our Constitution. Obama is currently in the process of doing just that with his Healthcare and Cap and Trade bills..

I want obamacrats to understand that if Obama succeeds in turning our Constitutional Republic into a statist dictatorship, obamacrats are likely to lose as much as will conservatives.

Neither the Health Care nor the Cap-and-trade bills does what you say they do; that is, none of the ideas contained within violate US laws and none of them are being imposed by a dictatorship. You are drowning in hyperbole.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

REPAIRING THE HEALTHCARE MEDICAL INSURANCE SYSTEM
(1) Tax each and every dollar of personal gross income the same amount.
(2) Allow each tax payer to deduct directly from their total computed tax on their annual personal gross incomes, 90% of the annual cost of their private medical insurance upto 30% of their total computed tax.
(3) Allow each taxpayer for whom 30% of their computed tax on their personal gross income exceeds the cost of the purchase of their private medical insurance, to deduct upto that excess what they donate to the purchase of the private medical insurance of others.
(4) There shall be no federal taxes on businesses. or property beguests.
(5) There shall be no dollars exempted or deducted from personal gross income.
(6) There shall be no other tax deductions than those to pay for healthcare.

REPAIRING THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
(1) Social security deduction rates shall not increase.
(2) Individuals shall be permitted to privately invest an increasing percentage of their social security deductions in 20 year USA treasury bonds.
(3) The rate at which that increasing percentage increases to a maximum of 100% shall be 2.5% each year over 40 years.
(4) Starting now, Social Security income amounts shall be 96.6% of their previous year's income amount, such that in 20 years, income amounts will have decreased to (100% x 0..966^20 = 100% x 0.500 =) 50%, and in 40 years will have decreased to 25%.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

2009 INCOME TAX ON THOSE MARRIED FILING JOINTLY (The Bush Income Tax)

Over...........But not over..........The tax is...........Of the amount over
.......$0.........$16,700..............---------- 10%.........................$0
16,700.......... 67,900...............1,670.00 + 15%..................16,700
67,900.........137,050...............9,350.00 + 25%.................67,900
...
372,950........----------...........100,894.50 + 35%...............372,950

Obamacrats plan in 2011 to end the Bush Income Tax rates and revert to the Clinton Income Tax rates.

A married couple filing jointly whose annual joint taxable income this year was $30,000, paid $1,670 + (.15 x (30,000 - 16,700)) = $1670 + $1,995 = $3,665.

A married couple filing jointly whose annual joint taxable income in 2011 will be $30,000, will pay (0.15 x 30,000) = $4,500.

That will be an income tax increase = $4,500 - $3,665 = $835

If their annual taxable income were any amount $16,700 to $30,000, their tax increase would also be $835.

4 Replies

@ican711nm,

The obamacrats are now accusing those attending Town Hall Meetings and disagreeing with obamacrat healthcare, of behaving like Nazis. This is part of the obamacrat technique of accusing those who disagree with them of behaving exactly like obamacrats are behaving. Obamacrats are bringing in union thugs to Town Hall Meetings to intimidate and hurt those who who disagree with them.

Clearly, obamacrat behavior has now evolved to nazis behavior.

Obamacrats must be stopped and held accountable. The American people must confront obamacrats and demand Obama's impeachment and removal by Congress, now.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

2009 INCOME TAX ON THOSE MARRIED FILING JOINTLY (The Bush Income Tax)

Over...........But not over..........The tax is...........Of the amount over
.......$0.........$16,700..............---------- 10%.........................$0
16,700.......... 67,900...............1,670.00 + 15%..................16,700
67,900.........137,050...............9,350.00 + 25%.................67,900
...
372,950........----------...........100,894.50 + 35%...............372,950

Obamacrats plan in 2011 to end the Bush Income Tax rates and revert to the Clinton Income Tax rates.

A married couple filing jointly whose annual joint taxable income this year was $30,000, paid $1,670 + (.15 x (30,000 - 16,700)) = $1670 + $1,995 = $3,665.

A married couple filing jointly whose annual joint taxable income in 2011 will be $30,000, will pay (0.15 x 30,000) = $4,500.

That will be an income tax increase = $4,500 - $3,665 = $835

If their annual taxable income were any amount $16,700 to $30,000, their tax increase would also be $835.

That isn't the Dems 'plan'; that was the original plan when Bush passed the tax cuts. The Dems don't have to do anything, b/c the original laws have sunset dates built into them. Remember?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The obamacrats are now accusing those attending Town Hall Meetings and disagreeing with obamacrat healthcare, of behaving like Nazis. This is part of the obamacrat technique of accusing those who disagree with them of behaving exactly like obamacrats are behaving. Obamacrats are bringing in union thugs to Town Hall Meetings to intimidate and hurt those who who disagree with them.

Horse ****. Democrats aren't against disagreements in policy, but we are against citizens disrupting meetings through violence and intimidation, endless chanting and insulting of elected officials. Unruly behavior, not Democratic behavior.

Quote:

Clearly, obamacrat behavior has now evolved to nazis behavior.

Obamacrats must be stopped and held accountable. The American people must confront obamacrats and demand Obama's impeachment, now.

You honestly think that the protesters who have been shouting down people and disrupting meetings are acting appropriately? Sad.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

The Democrat majorities in Congress have repeatedly refused to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their current sunset date despite the efforts of Republicans to get them extended.

That, of course, is because the obamacrats who currently dictate what the Democrats do, want to increase not decrease our taxes.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The Democrat majorities in Congress have repeatedly refused to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their current sunset date despite the efforts of Republicans to get them extended.

That, of course, is because the obamacrats who currently dictate what the Democrats do, want to increase not decrease our taxes.

That is correct.

If you Republicans didn't want to have the tax cuts expire, you shouldn't have included sunset dates in the bills allowing the tax cuts. This was the plan all along; remember?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

endless chanting and insulting of elected officials.

I dont remember you issuing one single complaint when the same was done to Bush admin officials when they tried to speak at various universities and other public venues.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Horse ****. Democrats aren't against disagreements in policy, but we are against citizens disrupting meetings through violence and intimidation, endless chanting and insulting of elected officials. Unruly behavior, not Democratic behavior.

Oh really ??!! I think you are forgetting a very large portion of the history of Democrat & liberal politics over the past few decades.

I believe the real truth here is that a growing number of American voters are becoming concerned and aroused by the actions of a Democrat Congress that is obviously controlled by the organized left-wing constituent groups that dominate it, and the elevated, vague, but increasingly deceptive rhetoric of a President who doesn't do details.

4 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know