another right wing lunatic prattling on about "death panels"

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't know that I'd lump a "fair" rating in the "happy" category.

 

Ok, so you are left with nit picking. Nice argument. Back to the bankruptcy, you stated 80% of those that had bankruptcy "linked" to health care cost had insurance. So maybe it isn't the lack of health insurance, but lack of a prudent reserve or supplemental insurance, and has little to nothing to do with health care, but more to do with not saving for a raining day but choosing to spend money on other material goods instead of security.

 

"linked to health care cost is fishy and you know it, because if they had to pay a $20 copay who is to say that isn't the $20 that put them over the top. Of course it was more than likely the car, tv, and house they bought, but it can be "linked" to health care cost.

[Chavez]

Ok, so you are left with nit picking. Nice argument.

Semantics, less than nitpicking.

 

Back to the bankruptcy, you stated 80% of those that had bankruptcy "linked" to health care cost had insurance. So maybe it isn't the lack of health insurance, but lack of a prudent reserve or supplemental insurance, and has little to nothing to do with health care, but more to do with not saving for a raining day but choosing to spend money on other material goods instead of security.

And you, of course, know this for a fact.

 

Do most people lack enough reserves? Yep. Do too few people save for a rainy day? Yep. Do people overvalue material goods? Yep.

 

The thing is, I don't. And I worry like hell that my personal financial situation, heck, my LIFE, is at the whim of some faceless corporate drone and luck. Not to mention that, oh, EVERY OTHER Western country has national health care and polls for the most part show that their generally as content with it as US citizens are with our f'ed up mess.

[untateve]

Wouldn't it just be easier to withhold medical care from anyone who is too stupid not to have health insurance?

Edited August 20, 2009 by untateve

[Perchoutofwater]

Any health care reform that doesn't address illegal aliens and tort reform (regarding medical malpractice suits) is either a half hearted attempt at medical reform or a government power grab.

[Chavez]

Any health care reform that doesn't address illegal aliens and tort reform (regarding medical malpractice suits) is either a half hearted attempt at medical reform or a government power grab.

Tort reform is unnecessary. The cost of al malpractice suits (including legal fees, payouts, and insurance costs) is less than 1/2 of 1% of all health-care spending. It's tough to use THAT sliver to argue that people exercising their 7th Amendment Rights are the reason medical costs are spiraling out of control.

 

Not only that, most claims are NOT frivolous:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

 

The most impressive and comprehensive study is by the Harvard Medical Practice released in 1990. The Harvard researchers took a huge sample of 31,000 medical records, dating from the mid-1980s, and had them evaluated by practicing doctors and nurses, the professionals most likely to be sympathetic to the demands of the doctor's office and operating room. The records went through multiple rounds of evaluation, and a finding of negligence was made only if two doctors, working independently, separately reached that conclusion. Even with this conservative methodology, the study found that doctors were injuring one out of every 25 patients—and that only 4 percent of these injured patients sued.

 

 

(in 2006) Dr. David Studdert led a team of eight researchers from Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Harvard Risk Management Foundation who examined 1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing. In a quarter of the claims, the patient died.

 

When baseless medical malpractice suits were brought, the study further found, the courts efficiently threw them out. Only six of the cases in which the researchers couldn't detect injury received even token compensation. Of those in which an injury resulted from treatment, but evidence of error was uncertain, 145 out of 515 received compensation. Indeed, a bigger problem was that 236 cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and error to patients by physicians. The other approximately 1,050 cases, in the research team's opinion, were decided correctly, with damage awards going to the injured and dismissal foiling the frivolous suits.

 

A recent RAND study looked at the growth in malpractice awards between 1960 and 1999. "Our results are striking," the research team concluded. "Not only do we show that real average awards have grown by less than real income over the 40 years in our sample, we also find that essentially all of this growth can be explained by changes in observable case characteristics and claimed economic losses."

 

And, as a matter of fact, according to the article, litigation can spur pro-active efforts to decrease lawsuits (which nicely dovetails with better and safer patient care):

 

Anesthesiologists used to get hit with the most malpractice lawsuits and some of the highest insurance premiums. Then in the late 1980s, the American Society of Anesthesiologists launched a project to analyze every claim ever brought against its members and develop new ways to reduce medical error. By 2002, the specialty had one of the highest safety ratings in the profession, and its average insurance premium plummeted to its 1985 level, bucking nationwide trends. Similarly, feeling embattled by a high rate of malpractice claims, the University of Michigan Medical System in 2002 analyzed all adverse claims and used the data to restructure procedures to guard against error. Since instituting the program, the number of suits has dropped by half, and the university's annual spending on malpractice litigation is down two-thirds. And at the Lexington, Ky., Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a program of early disclosure and settlement of malpractice claims lowered average settlement costs to $15,000, compared with $83,000 for other VA hospitals.

[Azazello1313]

And, as a matter of fact, according to the article, litigation can spur pro-active efforts to decrease lawsuits (which nicely dovetails with better and safer patient care):

 

well that is just rephrasing the point people like perch would make...that litigation makes doctors do things (that cost money) that they as doctors wouldn't otherwise do simply to prevent lawsuits. "defensive medicine", and those costs likely aren't counted in your half of a percent stat.

 

nevertheless, while I think medical tort reform may be a good idea, it is not the main problem and to pretend it is is kind of silly. the main problem is the idiotic way our system shelters economic costs from the people making the decisions. if you want to spend 20 minutes reading about what the real problems are, read this and this.

[Sox]

My wife is a tiny woman.When we learned she was pregnant we had some concerns due to her size(4'9" and 95 pounds).We went to my sister's OBGYN;they handled her last two pregnancies,both of which had some very serious complications and are excellent.Everything was going smoothly until our doc ran a 32 week ultrasound(her third) and spotted something that gave him some concern.He was worried about blood flow to the baby.He sent us to a specialist who saw us two days later,and he ran a much more in depth ultrasound.He told us the blood flow was fine,but he wanted us back in two week for a baseline.Two weeks later,another ultrasound.He took us into the office afterwards and told the baby's AFI (Amniotic Fluid Index) was low at 7.0. He wanted us back in ten days to check it again and if it continued to drop it would probably be time to deliver the baby.(Chargerz knows the story,we discussed this via PM back in FEB).Ten days later her AFI was at 5.0.He told us it was time to deliver the baby;the low AFI was increasing the risk too much.It was time.On Feb 22 Jason was born,three weeks early,but healthy.

 

1:My concerns;My health plan permitted me to choose my doctor.Would the government plan do the same?

 

2:Our doc performed an extra ultrasound,just to be safe due to Jeanette's age and size.Would the government plan allow this?Or would it have been classified as "unnecessary".

 

3:The potential problem being spotted,we we referred and sent to a specialist just two days later.Would the government plan allow this?Or would some pencil pusher determine that most babies are ok,so no need?Would we have been allowed all three visits without government red tape holding us up while the risk to our baby increased by the day?

 

There's a very good chance none of these tests would have ever been performed under a government health plan.Maybe,maybe not,but either way I don't want to find out because MY plan does allow all of this.I'll keep my Blue Cross Blue Shield.You can keep your government health plan.

 

Wouldn't it be better to address the problem of the MINORITY that can't get health care,instead of forcing a plan upon the entire country?

 

Just my humble opinion.

[Perchoutofwater]

well that is just rephrasing the point people like perch would make...that litigation makes doctors do things (that cost money) that they as doctors wouldn't otherwise do simply to prevent lawsuits. "defensive medicine", and those costs likely aren't counted in your half of a percent stat.

 

nevertheless, while I think medical tort reform may be a good idea, it is not the main problem and to pretend it is is kind of silly. the main problem is the idiotic way our system shelters economic costs from the people making the decisions. if you want to spend 20 minutes reading about what the real problems are, read this and this.

 

Tort reform is not a silver bullet, but it would help curb medical cost significantly as defensive medicine and malpractice coverage is estimated to account for up to 10% of our medical bills. Rather than fundamentally change the system, that most people are not dissatisfied with (when you ask about their own care), tweak it. Do something to address illegal aliens, do something to address the cost of litigation, and possibly expand government programs for the indigent.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Tort reform is unnecessary. The cost of al malpractice suits (including legal fees, payouts, and insurance costs) is less than 1/2 of 1% of all health-care spending. It's tough to use THAT sliver to argue that people exercising their 7th Amendment Rights are the reason medical costs are spiraling out of control.

 

Not only that, most claims are NOT frivolous:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, as a matter of fact, according to the article, litigation can spur pro-active efforts to decrease lawsuits (which nicely dovetails with better and safer patient care):

 

That is not what Rushor my local congressman told me

 

Tort reform is not a silver bullet, but it would help curb medical cost significantly as defensive medicine and malpractice coverage is estimated to account for up to 10% of our medical bills.

BUll Ship

[i_am_the_swammi]

when potentially life and death decisions are being made, it's too late to switch - so you're either on the hook for money you thought your insurance company would pay or you're dead.

 

Yep...not sure where all this hot air is coming from that if you have private insurance and are in a life-and-death situation, you can squitch carriers at a moments notice.

 

people can't be so stupid to really beleive they have options at that point in life....can they?

[TimC]

If I lose my job, I doubt I'll ever get the same kind of health insurance because I now have a pre-existing heart condition. Oh happy joy joy. What a wonderful day that will be. I'm guessing that makes me a loser because I didn't hit the DNA lottery on my heart. Kinda like how those that die before Social Security kicks in loses every penny to those lucky enough with the longevity gene.

 

I'll probably be lining up in the future for Obamacare since it doesn't take into account pre-existing conditions like private health insurance does. Oh well.

[i_am_the_swammi]

expand government programs.

 

[beavis]hehehehe{/beavis] Perch said expand government programs [beavis]hehehehe[/beavis]

[untateve]

If I lose my job, I doubt I'll ever get the same kind of health insurance because I now have a pre-existing heart condition. Oh happy joy joy. What a wonderful day that will be. I'm guessing that makes me a loser because I didn't hit the DNA lottery on my heart. Kinda like how those that die before Social Security kicks in loses every penny to those lucky enough with the longevity gene.

 

I'll probably be lining up in the future for Obamacare since it doesn't take into account pre-existing conditions like private health insurance does. Oh well.

 

If I achieve my goal of sitting on The Death Panel, I'll do what I can for you. But no promises.

[TimC]

If I achieve my goal of sitting on The Death Panel, I'll do what I can for you. But no promises.

 

Bless your egg and you. Notice I put the egg ahead of you. I knew you'd appreciate that.

[AtomicCEO]

I don't know that I'd lump a "fair" rating in the "happy" category.

 

Ok, so you are left with nit picking.

 

Again I ask... who would take you seriously?

 

Here's a high number

Your number is completely made up

Here's another lower number

You're misquoting it, it's much lower

Whatever... this is nitpicking

 

I guess this is how you win an election though.

[Ursa Majoris]

Wouldn't it be better to address the problem of the MINORITY that can't get health care,instead of forcing a plan upon the entire country?

 

Just my humble opinion.

It's already been said countless times that those with existing insurance aren't going to have to do anything unless they want to.

[whomper]

I keep seeing the term death panels but havent researched what it is about. Can someone please provide the quick synopsis sans slant ?

Edited August 20, 2009 by whomper

[Ursa Majoris]

I keep seeing the term death panels but havent researched what it is about. Can someone please provide the quick synopsis sans slant ?

Rush, Az and perch (to name but three) say that Obama is going to convene firing squads so that anyone over 35 who has a cold will be dragged out and shot.

 

Think Logan's Run.

[WaterMan]

Any health care reform that doesn't address illegal aliens and tort reform (regarding medical malpractice suits) is either a half hearted attempt at medical reform or a government power grab.

 

This reform doesn't cover illegal aliens.

[SheikYerbuti]

Obama is going to convene firing squads so that anyone over 35 who has a cold will be dragged out and shot.

 

Is is wrong that I'm in favor of this?

[Sox]

It's already been said countless times that those with existing insurance aren't going to have to do anything unless they want to.

 

 

 

It's been said,but I don't believe them.How does a private insurer that has to make a profit as a business compete with a government plan that doesn't?

[Azazello1313]

I keep seeing the term death panels but havent researched what it is about. Can someone please provide the quick synopsis sans slant ?

 

read this if you'd like a reasonable synopsis of what some folks are concerned about.

[Ursa Majoris]

It's been said,but I don't believe them.How does a private insurer that has to make a profit as a business compete with a government plan that doesn't?

Since the government is so grotesquely inefficient and private business is always incredibly efficient, they should be able to beat the government plan into the ground, right? At least, that's always been the right wing creed........why wouldn't it apply in this arena?

[TimC]

Since the government is so grotesquely inefficient and private business is always incredibly efficient, they should be able to beat the government plan into the ground, right? At least, that's always been the right wing creed........why wouldn't it apply in this arena?

 

The argument is to blame T_Bone. That big guy can print money like Mike Wallace being chased by the Klan.

[Perchoutofwater]

Since the government is so grotesquely inefficient and private business is always incredibly efficient, they should be able to beat the government plan into the ground, right? At least, that's always been the right wing creed........why wouldn't it apply in this arena?

 

If the government plan has to be self sustaining the private sector will beat it into the ground. The problem most with any foresight have with this is that once a public option is introduced, even if it supposed to be self sustaining, that in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years (to use Obama's words) it may be helped along by an infusion of tax dollars, so that it can actually operate at a loss, putting private companies at as serious disadvantage.