IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@Irishk,

This is true. But, we've already discussed the fact that Conservatives are completely and totally unwilling to undertake an attack upon those cultural habits which lead to health problems.

The big difference being that those with more money, here, can afford to pay for the treatment. Those without, can't. And this situation has always been perfectly fine for the right-wing. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I doubt that Michael Moore is unaware of the damage being obese does to his health. You can lead a horse to water.....

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

If the national average went up 150% during that same time frame...then I'd consider the Texas model to be a little better, you? Again, these numbers are all taken out of context...which usually means that the author is pushing some agenda.

Now, it's quite possible that the increases/decreases in either the national or the Texas model were not due to anything related to tort reform.....there is not enough data given from that "article".

I really wish I had the resources/time to dig into these numbers a little deeper. I just have to laugh and call out the absurdity of these "journalists" who publish the crap that Advocate likes to copy/paste here.

I'd get fired in a heartbeat from my job if my analysis was as shoddy.

I guess I will have to fly around the country to conduct a major study on tort reform. Well, on the other hand, maybe map is just into denial.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

I don't think I'm in denial.

Do you seriously think that the article you posted proves that tort reform does not reduce costs?

Do you have to do any analysis at your job? Or did you in school? This is some shoddy reporting/analysis.

I'm not asking you to do the studies; just don't post garbage and treat it like gospel. I have the same expectations for people on the right who do the same cut/paste job over and over and over and over and over.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Is it fair to make international comparisons of life-expectancy without factoring in the ethnic diversity of the U.S.? John Tierney of the New York Times thinks maybe not.

I guess Mr. Tierney forgot that Canada is more ethnically diverse than the U.S.

Or is that why he dropped it from his analysis?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I really wish I had the resources/time to dig into these numbers a little deeper. I just have to laugh and call out the absurdity of these "journalists" who publish the crap that Advocate likes to copy/paste here.

I'd get fired in a heartbeat from my job if my analysis was as shoddy.

You don't need more resources/time to dig into these numbers. Common sense mandates that you don't need a calculator to figure out higher costs result in higher costs. Every argument to the contrary is ridiculous on its face. I negotiate with Insurance adjusters quite often, and their formula is predictably simple: They weigh the risk of their exposure against the Plaintiff's likelihood of success and settle accordingly. Anyone with half a mind would have to admit that less exposure would result in lower settlement offers, which in turn lowers their payouts a hell of a lot more than just the initial cap otherwise would. Competition mandates that if insurance company's try to keep too much profit, a competitor will be along shortly to undercut the prices of the greedy giants, and will be quite happy indeed to acquire a smaller portion of profit, on business it wouldn't otherwise have attracted. This is how a free market works. Everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of business knows this.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Maybe he figured it wasn't a factor due to the role the U.S. plays in keeping Canadians healthy.

Including taking in their preemies.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

I agree completly OB....that is exactly how it works. The only problem I sort of see with the insurance industry is that they have an anti-trust exemption and thusly are able to keep competitors out of the market much easier than other businesses can.

I with the congress would package tort reform, removal of the anti-trust exemption, and selling insurance across state lines into this bill.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Most of the amendments offered by the Republicans, including lowering premiums for health-conscious non-smokers, tort reform, etc., were rejected by the Democrats.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Unfortunately, there are a relatively small number of insurance companies dominating the industry. Any cognizant person will tell you that, while the companies (but not the injured) will benefit from tort reform, little or nothing will be passed on in the form of lower premiums. TX is a huge state, and it is quite likely that its experience there will be similar elsewhere.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

What happened in Texas again? I'm sure you're not referring back to that completely useless article you cut/pasted.....are you?

0 Replies

BTW, the money saved by tort reform is not that much, certainly not enough to lure new entrants into the business, thereby lowering rates (as someone said).

1 Reply

@Advocate,

I suppose that settles it then. Thanks for clearing that up.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Life expectancy in both England and Canada is longer than it is in the US -- and the people there pay substantially less for their healthcare....

You know elementary statistics - the underlying populations are identical in all cases, in your view?

0 Replies

I am not alone is saying this is just RomneyCare . . .http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/22/mitt_romney_health_care_hypocrisy/index.html?source=newsletter

0 Replies

BTW, for years, the right wingers on both Abuzz and A2K ranted on and on and on about how the left is responsible for most, if not all, lawsuits pressed in the US.

Interestingly, that several attorneys general from several rather conservative states have filed actions against this romney/obama care thing.

According to the conservative commentators lined up by NPR today, any Constitutional basis for the suits is slight.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Ah, here s/he is . . . insulting other posters and huffing and puffing.

Shall I correct her/his grammar and really set her/him off?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Please do.....why in the world do you try to pick fights? What's in it for you POM? Are you just trying to make this thread about you and me too? Why do that?

...oh, and please point out where I insulted another poster. I have been referencing the author of the article the entire time.

0 Replies

Do, please,keep in mind that the cost of malpractice suits AND the cost of malpractice insurance TOGETHER are less than 1% of medical costs in the US. Even if malpractice suits and malpractice insurance were eliminated entirely, it would have virtually no effect on health costs. As you go about eliminating them, be sure to think about the medical community's estimate of almost 100,000 (that's one hundred thousand) unnecessary deaths every year due to MEDICAL ERRORS, essentially the definition of malpractice.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/07/23/102434.htm
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/deadbymistake/6555095.html

Regardless of how much effort you want to put into so-called tort reform, it simply does not involve enough money to have a significant impact on health costs. A certain segment of shrill people have inflated its impact beyond reason.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You're heard of "defensive medicine" right? The thought is that the threat of malpractice suits leads to much many more 'useless' tests to be ran to 'cover their asses'.

The thought is, that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to cause a significant change in doctor's behavior. Just like the threat of an accident or ticket is enough to get people to buy auto-insurance. Doctors have admitted to this.

Regardless of the end result on overall healthcare costs; I still think it's wrong for people to get millions of dollars for a wrongful death. I've heard of a type of reform that pays unlimited amounts for 'actual' damages, and up to $250k for pain and suffering. I'm pretty sure I'd support that, and haven't heard many reasons why that'd be a bad thing.

AND, if they were to implement tort reform, you'd at least get some republicans on board, and get them to shut up about it.

I don't know MJ, why are you opposed to tort reform?

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know