Repeal all forms of socialism!

[lokithelion]

I didn't have Vet insurance, I had Federal Employee Health insurance. It was fine, just really expensive for the government (and not inexpensive for what they took out of my paycheck and I had the cheapest available).

There are alot of honest issues with heathcare reform. The employee-based system leaves unemployed workers at a disadvantage, but you run into pooling problems if you eliminate it. A public option could improve things, but it could put insurance companies (who already have pretty thin margins) out of business which would harm consumers. If you break down data, the number of uninsired which would be covered under a government plan tends to be more like 11M uninsured, not 40M, so it's a question of how much money do we want to spend as a government to cover that number. Massachusetts has had horrible cost overruns on its state-level program which does not help the case for a government plan. It's a really complicated issue that gets broken down across party lines and is way oversimplified.

their profit margins are thin because they include hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses as part of the cost of doing business, and then post whatever is left over as profit.

[rtw88]

I didn't have Vet insurance, I had Federal Employee Health insurance. It was fine, just really expensive for the government (and not inexpensive for what they took out of my paycheck and I had the cheapest available).

There are alot of honest issues with heathcare reform. The employee-based system leaves unemployed workers at a disadvantage, but you run into pooling problems if you eliminate it. A public option could improve things, but it could put insurance companies (who already have pretty thin margins) out of business which would harm consumers. If you break down data, the number of uninsired which would be covered under a government plan tends to be more like 11M uninsured, not 40M, so it's a question of how much money do we want to spend as a government to cover that number. Massachusetts has had horrible cost overruns on its state-level program which does not help the case for a government plan. It's a really complicated issue that gets broken down across party lines and is way oversimplified.

their profit margins are thin because they include hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses as part of the cost of doing business, and then post whatever is left over as profit.

You forgot about the lobbying and advertising.

[mcm1610]

Interesting. I've heard all the horror stories about Canadian Health Insurance and waiting. My understand though, is that the waiting isn't inherent in the system, it's in part due to the Government's attempt to control costs.

I have also heard that as much as American conservatives say, "We don't want no socialized medicine like in Holland", every other developed nation says they don't want the American model in much the same way. Go us.

The Canadian health insurance and waiting is tricky... I'm not really sure why we need to wait as long as we do. It very well could be based on cost, but I believe it's the fact that we don't have enough hospitals and doctors to cover our demand on the system. Obviously waiting wasn't always as bad as it is now, but I've heard from people that need cancer treatment, the wait could be 6-12 months or so. Granted, when my mom went in for treatment, she only waited about 2 months or so, so who knows...

My understanding is that a lotltlolotlotlotlotlotlot of doctors head to the US because they can make more money here, so there's fewer than needed in Canada.

But the problem here is that we're so lawsuit happy that malpractice insurance is through-the-roof.

[sgoodcore]

The bit about lawsuits is silly. If the suit has no merit the judiciary branch of government does its job and tosses. Nothing more to it. There's no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit that settles. The judiciary branch exists for a reason, there's no need to legislate its purpose away. Judges understand far better than do legislators how to interpret the law.

Not to mention counter-suits can be brought for repayment if the lawsuit was without merit. And both lawyers and doctor's have malpractice insurance, different insurance sector, to cover them when they make a mistake.

No doctor, unless they do something horrendous - in which case they deserve what they get - has gone bankrupt via a malpractice lawsuit.

[steventangent]

There's no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit that settles.

That actually happens all the time, when lawyers, in their infinite wisdom, decide that it's cheaper to settle than to go to court, or that it's worth their while to protect the defendant's reputation.

[mcm1610]

Suits cost money just by being brought up, though, jacking the price up. Why do you think doctors have so much money in malpractice insurance if those suits amount to nothing? People try to sue for anything that goes wrong. My mom was an ER nurse and was on the fringe of a lot of these kinds of suits.

[jayeffscene]

This thread is too smart for this board.

POST NIPZ DUDES

[rtw88]

While Sammy is a little optimistic on the numbers of cases that get thrown out, he's right in that only about 15% of the total cost of malpractice can be attributed to frivolous lawsuits. It's also unfair to say that no doctor has ever gone bankrupt because of a frivolous suit since 10% of frivolous suits are improperly decided. That said, doctors shouldn't whine. It's part of the job and they need to be held responsible for what they do.

Source: http://www.webmd.com/news/20060510/malpractice-suits-frivolous-real

I had to write a paper about all this shit for my Medical Professions class.

[dutchrudder]

...A public option could improve things, but it could put insurance companies (who already have pretty thin margins) out of business which would harm consumers.

Uh, when you pay your CEO hundreds of millions of dollars your margins are fine.

I didn't have Vet insurance, I had Federal Employee Health insurance. It was fine, just really expensive for the government (and not inexpensive for what they took out of my paycheck and I had the cheapest available).

There are alot of honest issues with heathcare reform. The employee-based system leaves unemployed workers at a disadvantage, but you run into pooling problems if you eliminate it. A public option could improve things, but it could put insurance companies (who already have pretty thin margins) out of business which would harm consumers. If you break down data, the number of uninsired which would be covered under a government plan tends to be more like 11M uninsured, not 40M, so it's a question of how much money do we want to spend as a government to cover that number. Massachusetts has had horrible cost overruns on its state-level program which does not help the case for a government plan. It's a really complicated issue that gets broken down across party lines and is way oversimplified.

Firstly, its great to read something that's not overly ridiculous. But second, it is pretty damn simple in that what we have now is terribly broken. That part is simple and its pretty obvious. We spend more than most industrial nations on health care and our coverage is some of the worst amongst those countries. We, as a nation, spend less than countries with single-payer and public options.

The whole point of having insurance to get treatment but once you're sick too often people are dropped from coverage. That's simple and that's broken. If Congress took a hard look at the current government-aided programs, single-payer programs, and public options it could come up with a plan hybrid with the best characteristics of all of them. However, they're too busy bowing to their overlords at Aetna, United, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield to worry about it. So they whip people up about abortion and death panels and socialism and Nazism - even though a cursory glance in to history makes it obvious, painfully so - those two thing are at total odds. Instead we get a watered down bill that will likely help insurance companies and not offer any kind of actual help.

Speaking of bowing to overlords, when did it become a good idea for companies to lobby congressmen to vote for or against certain bills? Shouldn't this be illegal? Why is Americas head so far up its ass??

[lokithelion]

Uh, when you pay your CEO hundreds of millions of dollars your margins are fine.

Firstly, its great to read something that's not overly ridiculous. But second, it is pretty damn simple in that what we have now is terribly broken. That part is simple and its pretty obvious. We spend more than most industrial nations on health care and our coverage is some of the worst amongst those countries. We, as a nation, spend less than countries with single-payer and public options.

The whole point of having insurance to get treatment but once you're sick too often people are dropped from coverage. That's simple and that's broken. If Congress took a hard look at the current government-aided programs, single-payer programs, and public options it could come up with a plan hybrid with the best characteristics of all of them. However, they're too busy bowing to their overlords at Aetna, United, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield to worry about it. So they whip people up about abortion and death panels and socialism and Nazism - even though a cursory glance in to history makes it obvious, painfully so - those two thing are at total odds. Instead we get a watered down bill that will likely help insurance companies and not offer any kind of actual help.

Speaking of bowing to overlords, when did it become a good idea for companies to lobby congressmen to vote for or against certain bills? Shouldn't this be illegal? Why is Americas head so far up its ass??

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

[dutchrudder]

Speaking of bowing to overlords, when did it become a good idea for companies to lobby congressmen to vote for or against certain bills? Shouldn't this be illegal? Why is Americas head so far up its ass??

I really hope you're being sarcastic.

Why would you think I was being sarcastic? Lobbying congressmen should be illegal.

[lokithelion]

The when did it become a good idea part. It's been a part of American, and frankly all, government since its inception. If you want to know when it became legal it was when we decided corporations counted as legal individuals and the donating money constituted free speech.

[dutchrudder]

The when did it become a good idea part. It's been a part of American, and frankly all, government since its inception. If you want to know when it became legal it was when we decided corporations counted as legal individuals and the donating money constituted free speech.

Oh ya, I guess I should have worded it differently.

[dntheman1]

Just wait until people tire of needing to have "our man in Washington" and decide to up and disappear to an unknown and undetectable valley somewhere in Nevada...

[sgoodcore]

While Sammy is a little optimistic on the numbers of cases that get thrown out, he's right in that only about 15% of the total cost of malpractice can be attributed to frivolous lawsuits. It's also unfair to say that no doctor has ever gone bankrupt because of a frivolous suit since 10% of frivolous suits are improperly decided. That said, doctors shouldn't whine. It's part of the job and they need to be held responsible for what they do.

Source: http://www.webmd.com/news/20060510/malpractice-suits-frivolous-real

I had to write a paper about all this shit for my Medical Professions class.

Fair enough, my only point is we have a judiciary for a reason. All the talk about limiting malpractice is just more of a give-away to corporations. Its disguised as something else because for the most part people don't have a high opinion of lawyers. Its an easy target to pit lawyers against doctors.

(Full disclosure: My mom is a lawyer and has NEVER brought a frivolous suit against anyone. It really doesn't happen as often as people imagine and more lawyers have ethics than you'd imagine. Further, if a lawyer continues with the suits it will cost them money (see Taitz, Orley) or they'll lose their license to practice.)

And on the subject of lobbying, if there were more strict term limits on Congress the effect of the lobby's money would be greatly reduced.