Warning...Do NOT click on this thread if you are easily frightened.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Nowitzki4President

No, I'm saying that real progressives wish for a single payer system, far right wingers want absolutely nothing done. What's the middle road? Public option. No one is making you choose the public option, that's why it's called an option.

It's something called compromise, it's what adults do.

There are five lights! How many do you see now?

[Nowitzki4President]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

There are five lights! How many do you see now?

I have no clue what that's supposed to mean, to be honest...

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Perhaps allowing some type of government regulation in terms of minimum liability...Although I don't like this portion, I would be willing to give into a liberal view that some people wouldn't be able to best decide what a fair level of minimum coverage should be.

As a Darwinist, I have to say I don't like this idea either.

[chumdawg]

Whyn doesn't government just mandate that you HAVE TO buy health insurance, just like you presently HAVE TO buy auto insurance?

[Nowitzki4President]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Whyn doesn't government just mandate that you HAVE TO buy health insurance, just like you presently HAVE TO buy auto insurance?

Because many people are denied healthcare, or dropped from it due to pre-existing conditions.

And in order to fix that, then the gov't needs to get their hands into the industry, which would make Republicans sh!t their pants.

[Flacolaco]

Interesting.

Though, no one ever complains that they can't "afford" auto insurance. They just don't buy it. Try getting into an accident in Dallas county and you'll soon find out no one has auto insurance seemingly but you.

I just hope they find a way to address the 9%? 15%? 22%? (depending on who you ask) that don't have health insurance (and are legal US citizens) rather than having that small minority dictate a huge change to the majority. That's lunacy.

I worked for Taco Bell through college, lived on my own, and got affordable health care with them. If you can do it there...

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the cbo says with the total awards of medical liability lawsuits representing less than 2% of the total amount spent on healthcare in america, a limit on tort liability would have little affect in reducing healthcare costs.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

1. "total awards... representing less than 2%." Thankfully there are no lawyer fees or costs associated to frivolous lawsuits or suits where the hospital wins. Whew.
2. What about malpractice insurance that the doctors and hospitals must carry?
3. My wife is in the medical field and the paperwork to CYA is a real b too.

Come on now, let's not let the best be the enemy of the good! Let's not choose to do nothing at all when something can be done!

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Nowitzki4President

No, I'm saying that real progressives wish for a single payer system, far right wingers want absolutely nothing done. What's the middle road? Public option. No one is making you choose the public option, that's why it's called an option.

It's something called compromise, it's what adults do.

Compromise is great, but I'm calling attention to the false choices you've set up. The public option is not the only alternative we have; it's just the only alternative that Congress is trying to shove down our throats. Adults should keep all their options open too, ya know. (Now why is it that Congress isn't addressing medical malpractice? Oh right, most of them are lawyers or lawyer-funded politicians. Silly me.)

How about this for a multiple choice question?
A. I kill you.
B. I kill your best friend.
C. You and your best friend give me $100 and never see me again.

Clearly the adult thing to do is to shut up and pick C already. Hey, what are you doing? Stop calling for the cops! STOP!

Originally Posted by Nowitzki4President

The companies cannot, and shouldn't be trusted.

There's a reason countries like France, Sweden and Canada are among the top 10 in life expectancy, while we sit at 50th.

I think there are reasons. Here's one more to add to your original one.

Or any number of entries from thisiswhyyourefat.com/

[dude1394]

What about the protective tests done so that they will NOT get sued. Like school vouchers, democrats will NOT bite one of the hands that feed them.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Nowitzki4President

I have no clue what that's supposed to mean, to be honest...

you should watch more Star Trek. Everyone should watch more Star Trek.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Whyn doesn't government just mandate that you HAVE TO buy health insurance, just like you presently HAVE TO buy auto insurance?

You don't HAVE to buy auto insurance. You can choose not to drive. You can't legally choose not to live (excepting maybe Oregon, in which case the state health option will happily help you make the cheaper choice).

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

You don't HAVE to buy auto insurance. You can choose not to drive. You can't legally choose not to live (excepting maybe Oregon, in which case the state health option will happily help you make the cheaper choice).

yeah, you're right, except when americans don't buy insurance and they get ill the costs are borne by the taxpayers, and those costs are rising at a couple times greater than overall costs.

the issue is simple: if we agree that everyone should have access to healthcare (iow we don't just let people die because they can't afford to pay the doctor/hospital), how do we provide that right without costing us higher and higher amounts?

a mandatory insurance requirement seems to solve the problem, and the question that we should be asking is not if there is this requirement, but rather what manner of insuring these people will there be.

[dude1394]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...hoto-id-town-h


Can't Make It Up: Dem Rep Who Opposes Photo ID To Vote Requiring Photo ID For Town Halls
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
August 11, 2009 - 14:18 ET

This is Congressman Eugene Green (HT to an e-mailer), Democrat from Texas, telling the world that if you're not from his District, you're not welcome at his future town hall meetings -- oh, and how he'll enforce his new rule (bold is his):

Unfortunately, due to a coordinated effort to disrupt our town hall meetings, we will be restricting further attendance to residents of the 29th Congressional District and verifying residency by requiring photo identification.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, you're right, except ...

there is no "except that . . . " That's a huge difference. Driving is a privilege that takes a license. You have to get permission from the government to do it, and so have to accept the constraints. Living is a right and doesn't take a license.

a mandatory insurance requirement seems to solve the problem, and the question that we should be asking is not if there is this requirement, but rather what manner of insuring these people will there be.

Why would you bother calling it mandatory insurance???? Why not just offer medical care to everyone who needs it, and then tax the crap out of everyone to pay for it?

edit: nevermind that second part, trying to do too much at once, and somehow read "HAVE to buy insurance [from the government]" in your post.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

there is no "except that . . . " That's a huge difference. Driving is a privilege that takes a license. You have to get permission from the government to do it, and so have to accept the constraints. Living is a right and doesn't take a license.


Why would you bother calling it mandatory insurance???? Why not just offer medical care to everyone who needs it, and then tax the crap out of everyone to pay for it?

edit: nevermind that second part, trying to do too much at once, and somehow read "HAVE to buy insurance [from the government]" in your post.

Everyone in the U.S. legally has access to Medical care...stop spreading the myth that they are not.

Why waste our tax dollars on things that are not needed?

Stop Tax dollars from funding ACORN, Abortion, Illegal Aliens, etc...

Cut down on government cost and reduce the need for tax dollars.

With the economy down, nearly everyone has adjusted and cut down on personal budgets...then why is our government INCREASING its spending? But this takes this thread in another direction.

Again, Legal U.S. citizens in the USA have access to medical care, with or without insurance. Obviously, those with insurance have an easier time, those without have to do a bit more legwork to find their resource.

Again, I've personally experienced both...you can get care...unless of course if you stop trying...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

I just hope they find a way to address the 9%? 15%? 22%? (depending on who you ask) that don't have health insurance (and are legal US citizens) rather than having that small minority dictate a huge change to the majority. That's lunacy.

I worked for Taco Bell through college, lived on my own, and got affordable health care with them. If you can do it there...

In all the years reading and hearing health care socialization arguments of one variety or another, I've never come across an argument that reasonably addresses one obvious question: How many of the folks that don't have health insurance don't have health insurance because they prefer to spend money on stuff like cell phones and cable tv and other non-essential goodies?

It's a pertinent question, right? I mean if half of those 22% of folks who don't have insurance don't have insurance because they prefer to spend their money on cable tv and games for the xbox and other stuff, then the problem isn't a health care problem but a......well it's not a social problem at all....these folks are just making decisions with their own money that you and I don't consider to be prudent.

I don't know the answer to this question, but then again I'm not touting an astronomically large socialist plan either.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

In all the years reading and hearing health care socialization arguments of one variety or another, I've never come across an argument that reasonably addresses one obvious question: How many of the folks that don't have health insurance don't have health insurance because they prefer to spend money on stuff like cell phones and cable tv and other non-essential goodies?

It's a pertinent question, right? I mean if half of those 22% of folks who don't have insurance don't have insurance because they prefer to spend their money on cable tv and games for the xbox and other stuff, then the problem isn't a health care problem but a......well it's not a social problem at all....these folks are just making decisions with their own money that you and I consider don't consider to be prudent.

I don't know the answer to this question, but then again I'm not touting an astronomically large socialist plan either.

That's an outstanding question.

We're always hearing about these people that "can't afford" health care.

And my buddy who teaches in the DISD at a a school where (sorry, but this is the easiest way to paint a picture) there are very few white kids, says that the kids show up to school every day without money for lunch, expecting the school to give them something, but they wear nikes and use fancy texting/smart cell phones.

Now, people can spend their money however they like in this country. We're free. They're free. Spend away....and I'm not suggesting the government judge people by how they spend their money, obviously that's a terrible idea...but you're right alex. There's an interesting question there.

[92bDad]

Are you stating that Insurance to support one's medical needs is a choice, like that of Cable/Satelite TV, IPOD or IPhone...heck cell service, and other items that one would consider a luxury?

Again, those who have a Legit need for help, we will help...who defines legit? Who decides if individuals are making choices that if a handout is provided at the cost of someone else is warranted, or if that individuals can cut back on their own costs in order to afford their own coverage?

Very good point indeed!!!

[Mavdog]

I've read that about a quarter of the uninsured just don't want coverage.

The issue is this: do you want to deny these people medical treatment if they don't have insurance or cannot afford to pay for the treatment?

Most (99.9%?) will say no, we need to give everyone care if they need it.

That being the decision, the issue is how to pay for it. Currently it falls on the backs of other people using the hospitals, or those paying property taxes to parkland, etc. It should be more evnly and equitably shared, and a national plan is the best way to acheive this.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I've read that about a quarter of the uninsured just don't want coverage.

The issue is this: do you want to deny these people medical treatment if they don't have insurance or cannot afford to pay for the treatment?

Most (99.9%?) will say no, we need to give everyone care if they need it.

That being the decision, the issue is how to pay for it. Currently it falls on the backs of other people using the hospitals, or those paying property taxes to parkland, etc. It should be more evnly and equitably shared, and a national plan is the best way to acheive this.

How much does this population of hospital users + property taxpayers vary from your proposed group of payers? Seems like there's a pretty good chance we're gonna end up with the same or similar cross-section of the population.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I've read that about a quarter of the uninsured just don't want coverage.

The issue is this: do you want to deny these people medical treatment if they don't have insurance or cannot afford to pay for the treatment?

Most (99.9%?) will say no, we need to give everyone care if they need it.

That being the decision, the issue is how to pay for it. Currently it falls on the backs of other people using the hospitals, or those paying property taxes to parkland, etc. It should be more evnly and equitably shared, and a national plan is the best way to acheive this.

Why a national plan? Why not a state one, or a county one, or a city one, or a church group one?

Why would a plan that works for a person who lives in NYC work for a person who lives the Big Ben area?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Why a national plan? Why not a state one, or a county one, or a city one, or a church group one?

Why would a plan that works for a person who lives in NYC work for a person who lives the Big Ben area?

It would work because then the dems would get to mandate all kinds of coverage that the Big Ben area people do not want. And make them pay for it.

It's a win-win.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by dude1394

What about the protective tests done so that they will NOT get sued. Like school vouchers, democrats will NOT bite one of the hands that feed them.

Dude is spot on.

First, we're looking at a 10% discount if we cap medical malpractice.

The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers says about 10% of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5% to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine.

Link

This doesn't include the expensive malpractice insurance that must be purchased. I think the efficiency gains (less tests, faster care, less paperwork, less CYA) can also trim some fat off medical bills. Regardless, 10% saved is 10% earned.

Then there's this:


$43 million in donations to Obama Esq., constituting 48% of all legal industry donations. Triple the amount to Clinton. There is at least honor amongst thieves.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

How much does this population of hospital users + property taxpayers vary from your proposed group of payers? Seems like there's a pretty good chance we're gonna end up with the same or similar cross-section of the population.

that's illogical. the reform plan would address the population as a whole.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Dude is spot on.

First, we're looking at a 10% discount if we cap medical malpractice.



This doesn't include the expensive malpractice insurance that must be purchased. I think the efficiency gains (less tests, faster care, less paperwork, less CYA) can also trim some fat off medical bills. Regardless, 10% saved is 10% earned.

uh, the fact that there ARE very real instances of medical malpractice do not go away with a limit on awards.

estimates by the medical profession estimate close to 100,000 people die each year due to mistakes by medical professionals.

when this happens the patient, or their family, deserve the chance to seek compensation.

[mcsluggo]

it is not just the right to just compensation when there is legit malpractice, that is ALMOST secondary.... the real value of of malpractice lawsuits comes from the check they place on behavior.

At one end of the spectrum, there is zero lawsuits. which would equal zero accountability in the medical profession, and we would end up with TERRIBLE medical care.

At the other end of the spectrum is doctors completely constrained by legal rulings in every move that they make. Once again, we would end up with terrible medical care.

somewhere in between is the optimal level, and where that is is certainly up for debate... but it ABSOLUTELY is NOT way over at the zero accountability end of the spectrum. As a result there is no way to eliminate all of that "10%" that was just bandied about.

Furthermore, I am surprised that only 2% comes from the direct costs of the lawsuits. Frankly, it is MUCH lower than I would have expected to hear, particularly given all the hoopla and hand wringing about it. Yes, in aggregate it is a big number (because healthcare is such a HUGE number--- 0.02 of huge is still big), but I am not sure what number we should expect here....?

<<<< btw.. that number DOES include the malpractice insurance costs--- you have the direct cost of the lawsuits OR you have insurance, not both, or else what are you getting for the insurance?--- by definition insurance is what you pay to offset possible bad future unseen costs, so competition should bid the average price of malpractice insurance to approximately the average cost of the malpractice payouts (plus a small risk premium) >>>

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

uh, the fact that there ARE very real instances of medical malpractice do not go away with a limit on awards.

estimates by the medical profession estimate close to 100,000 people die each year due to mistakes by medical professionals.

when this happens the patient, or their family, deserve the chance to seek compensation.

First, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Nor should we let the extreme examples dictate general policy. Bad facts make bad law, as the saying goes.

Second, I wonder how far those numbers would go down if doctors were busier taking care of patients instead of trying to practice CYA medicine. Isn't it time we were all patients again instead of potential plaintiffs?

Third, it's not compensation you want; it's punitive damages. As in punishing the doctor. Quite simply, the pound of flesh is not in the best interest of society, and it would be our patriotic duty to now forgo the less-frequently-used tactic of retribution through litigation.

Fourth, I've heard of those awful stories of piss-poor medical care resulting in the deaths of Americans. They happened to be from the VA hospitals treating our beloved veterans. Some of those stories were from Dallas. So it's ironic that you hope for compensation for these victims when it is simply darned near impossible to sue Government hospitals.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

that's illogical. the reform plan would address the population as a whole.

If you are referring to coverage, that's irrelevant. If you are referring to who pays the bills, it's not the population as a whole; it's only the rich... Isn't it?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

First, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Nor should we let the extreme examples dictate general policy. Bad facts make bad law, as the saying goes.

nor should we suffer through poor performance and act as if ti doesn't exist.

Second, I wonder how far those numbers would go down if doctors were busier taking care of patients instead of trying to practice CYA medicine. Isn't it time we were all patients again instead of potential plaintiffs?

that makes no sense. you're asking how far the number of lawsuits would go down of doctors were not going the extra mile to reduce their exposure? if drs weren't going above and beyond to "cya", they might reduce the number of tests, but it wouldn't reduce the number of mistakes.

Third, it's not compensation you want; it's punitive damages. As in punishing the doctor. Quite simply, the pound of flesh is not in the best interest of society, and it would be our patriotic duty to now forgo the less-frequently-used tactic of retribution through litigation.

no, it's both, and the concept of damages is a fundamental right of the claimant.

Fourth, I've heard of those awful stories of piss-poor medical care resulting in the deaths of Americans. They happened to be from the VA hospitals treating our beloved veterans. Some of those stories were from Dallas. So it's ironic that you hope for compensation for these victims when it is simply darned near impossible to sue Government hospitals.

if you believe these mistakes only occur in va hospitals you are very mistaken, they happen in the general population.

the errors will never go away, they are a fact of life. the point is that a reduction in the awards will not solve the issue of the rapidly escalating costs of healthcare.

If you are referring to coverage, that's irrelevant. If you are referring to who pays the bills, it's not the population as a whole; it's only the rich... Isn't it?

not that I am aware of. do you have anything that supports that conclusion?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

nor should we suffer through poor performance and act as if ti doesn't exist...

the errors will never go away, they are a fact of life. the point is that a reduction in the awards will not solve the issue of the rapidly escalating costs of healthcare.

You know, 10% savings is 10% savings, and maybe more with our increasingly litigious society. I admire your search for a plan to "solve" the entire health care problem, but perfectionism can and must here give way to pragmatism. It's a health care crisis, remember? I don't understand why this is completely off the table. It will certainly help more than doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

that makes no sense. you're asking how far the number of lawsuits would go down of doctors were not going the extra mile to reduce their exposure? if drs weren't going above and beyond to "cya", they might reduce the number of tests, but it wouldn't reduce the number of mistakes.

I'm asking whether overall care can be improved by reducing waste from going through a checklist just to prevent a lawsuit. The residents I know are majorly overworked. The nurses they work with compound that by ordering CYA tests that increase everyone's workload. There are only so many hours in the day, so many doctors, and so many resources to go around. It seems it would do the patients a world of good if everyone would just take the time to make sure which tests are actually needed by doing less of the shotgun approach to medicine.

Plus, it's ironic and somewhat contradictory for you to be pushing for a battery of needless, CYA tests. Even if it's "just to be sure," that's a whole lot of waste and extra cost there, my friend. For example, if a woman has never had sex but is not on birth control, she is still required to get a pregnancy test prior to potentially harmful tests.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, it's both, and the concept of damages is a fundamental right of the claimant.

"Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded to compensate the plaintiff, but to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff." Link. At best, you'd have to make a case that punitive damages are merely supplementing inadequate compensatory damages, so I wonder just how much of these multi-million dollar judgments can be trimmed away as pure fat.

And I further wonder: perhaps, like the gun-control advocates suggest, some fundamental rights should be revisited for the greater good of a more evolved and modern society? Let's get away from the archaic barbarism of bludgeoning health care providers with bankruptcy.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

if you believe these mistakes only occur in va hospitals you are very mistaken, they happen in the general population.

I never said they only occur in VA hospitals. Rather, I pointed out that it's ironic and contradictory for you to demand compensation for wronged patients while simultaneously pushing for a system that would virtually immunize some hospitals from both compensatory and punitive damages under sovereign immunity.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not that I am aware of. do you have anything that supports that conclusion?

Health care legislation will "probably include some additional revenue from well-to-do people," President Obama said in a Today show interview with Meredith Vieira that aired this morning. Link

U.S. President Barack Obama will keep his promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year, the White House said Monday, rebutting comments by administration officials that indicated otherwise.

"The president has made a very clear commitment to not raise taxes on middle-class families," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told a regular briefing. Link

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

You know, 10% savings is 10% savings, and maybe more with our increasingly litigious society. I admire your search for a plan to "solve" the entire health care problem, but perfectionism can and must here give way to pragmatism. It's a health care crisis, remember? I don't understand why this is completely off the table. It will certainly help more than doing nothing.

but...there will never be a "10% savings", because there will never be a complete stop to medical malpractice, and even with caps on the amount there will still be findings in favor of the patient with a payment by the doctor at fault.

unless of course you are proposing that we grant unlimited immunity to doctors fro their errors....

I'm asking whether overall care can be improved by reducing waste from going through a checklist just to prevent a lawsuit. The residents I know are majorly overworked. The nurses they work with compound that by ordering CYA tests that increase everyone's workload. There are only so many hours in the day, so many doctors, and so many resources to go around. It seems it would do the patients a world of good if everyone would just take the time to make sure which tests are actually needed by doing less of the shotgun approach to medicine.

Plus, it's ironic and somewhat contradictory for you to be pushing for a battery of needless, CYA tests. Even if it's "just to be sure," that's a whole lot of waste and extra cost there, my friend. For example, if a woman has never had sex but is not on birth control, she is still required to get a pregnancy test prior to potentially harmful tests.

there is a cya test, and then there is complete testing to make certain that all angles are being looked at and examined. as I was told at a seminar put on by one of the country's best medical schools, the doctor is going thru a series of guesses on what the patient's problem is. these series of tests help identify what the issues are, and they shouldn't be stopped just because of their expense.

how does the doctor ascertain that the woman truly has never had sex? asking her? and that is a 100% sure way? nah, it isn't.

"Punitive damages (termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom) are damages not awarded to compensate the plaintiff, but to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff." Link. At best, you'd have to make a case that punitive damages are merely supplementing inadequate compensatory damages, so I wonder just how much of these multi-million dollar judgments can be trimmed away as pure fat.

And I further wonder: perhaps, like the gun-control advocates suggest, some fundamental rights should be revisited for the greater good of a more evolved and modern society? Let's get away from the archaic barbarism of bludgeoning health care providers with bankruptcy.

and let's get away from the archaic barabarism of bludgeoning patients who have no or inadequate medical coverage with bankruptcy when they are faced with medical expenses they owe but cannot pay.

I never said they only occur in VA hospitals. Rather, I pointed out that it's ironic and contradictory for you to demand compensation for wronged patients while simultaneously pushing for a system that would virtually immunize some hospitals from both compensatory and punitive damages under sovereign immunity.

what? who is going to claim "sovereign immunity"? are you under the mistaken belief that the healthcare reform proposal institutes a nationalization of the heathcare system?

edit: your statement was "only the rich", and you have not supported that claim.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

but...there will never be a "10% savings", because there will never be a complete stop to medical malpractice, and even with caps on the amount there will still be findings in favor of the patient with a payment by the doctor at fault.

unless of course you are proposing that we grant unlimited immunity to doctors fro their errors....

But it won't be 0% either. And remember, we're talking about capping punitive damages, not an abolition of all relief as you seem to dread. Compensatory damages will remain with modest punitive damages (eg, $250,000 cap on the latter). The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there is a cya test, and then there is complete testing to make certain that all angles are being looked at and examined. as I was told at a seminar put on by one of the country's best medical schools, the doctor is going thru a series of guesses on what the patient's problem is. these series of tests help identify what the issues are, and they shouldn't be stopped just because of their expense.

That's a pretty face to put on the ugly problem of rising health care costs. It's just like House 24/7. I guess CYA medicine is just a myth? And, no one is suggesting we stop testing because it's expensive.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

how does the doctor ascertain that the woman truly has never had sex? asking her? and that is a 100% sure way? nah, it isn't.

But no tests are ordered for women on some form of birth control (contraceptives or otherwise), even though a test would also be the 100% sure way. The inconsistency suggests that it is unnecessary cost.

Originally Posted by Mavdog

what? who is going to claim "sovereign immunity"? are you under the mistaken belief that the healthcare reform proposal institutes a nationalization of the heathcare system?

Yea, you're right that this is the same argument we already had where you insist I'm mistaken and I insist you're shielding your eyes from the truth. As before, I'll leave it at "time will tell."

Originally Posted by Mavdog

edit: your statement was "only the rich", and you have not supported that claim.

While I disagree, you haven't proven it's wrong. Your statement was "the reform plan would address the population as a whole" as opposed to merely property owners. I asked, and you still have not answered whether you are talking about paying for the government health care system.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and let's get away from the archaic barabarism of bludgeoning patients who have no or inadequate medical coverage with bankruptcy when they are faced with medical expenses they owe but cannot pay.

Yea, that really sucks, but I wasn't really talking about universal coverage. Incidentally, almost 30 million people will likely remain uninsured under Congress's current plan.

As for an alternative proposal for increased coverage, we could give a $3200 health insurance credit to the same number of Americans added under the CBO estimate (16 million people) for only $52 billion a year. Or we could half insurance premiums ($1600 credit) for all 40 million uninsured Americans for only $64 billion a year.

[rmacomic]

I don't personally understand the great fear this nation has about things like socialized medicine.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know poo poo about poo poo, so if someone disagrees with me, there's a sporting chance that they are absolutely right.

With that said:

The "free market" concept was supposed to keep things competitive and thereby keep prices down and improve the economy. It appears that in some sectors it has done just the opposite because people, especially those in suits, are corruptible. We've obviously most recently seen this in the financial and loan market where a few shitheads at the top of the stack used creative truth-telling and loopholes to make a very nice place for themselves with no regard for the consequences of their actions.

I don't know much about finances, so I'll stick to a system I know a little more about that has been throwing that "socialized" word around a lot lately; medicine.

The medical system in the US is wildly expensive, to the point that I think I've seen statistics stating that the US is in the top 5 most expensive places in the world for healthcare and has some of the least healthy people (probably as a result). We've gotten to accustomed to paying outrageous prices for drugs and doctors that no one looks twice at it, until they don't have private insurance anymore.

The chief complaint that naysayers have against socialized healthcare/insurance is that there will be bureaucrats between you and your care providers. I find that idea to be incredibly laughable, since right now I have to clear every procedure with my insurance company anyway. How would this be any different?

They also like to use the examples of ridiculously long lines at Canadian emergency rooms, but, truth be told, every time I go to the ER I have to sit there 3-4 hours to be seen for 20 minutes, because I'm in queue behind a large chunk of the community with no insurance, so they have to go to the ER with sniffles to get help.

A government run system can barter for lower prices, especially in the cases of health welfare. By keeping the health service a monopoly it puts the onus on the Drugs manufacturers to compete for prices.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by rmacomic

A government run system can barter for lower prices, especially in the cases of health welfare. By keeping the health service a monopoly it puts the onus on the Drugs manufacturers to compete for prices.

This I do find very intriguing in its theoretical form. Although it assumes that the health services providers are colluding against the consumers in a de facto monopoly, I heard a Congressman argue that they could do what Walmart did: bring a gigantic customer base to drug companies in exchange for $4 drugs. It would be interesting to see the details of how Walmart does it. A few to look at:

1) Are these cheap drugs only generics? If so, there's a 7-year statutory delay while the patents on the originals are allowed to run their course. Tweaking this may impact how effectively new drugs can be developed.
2) Where are they getting the generics? I stumbled across this website which seems quite biased against Walmart, but the concern remains. Link The last thing we want is a "Chinese dog food" incident with our medicine.
3) Early on, I heard rumors that Walmart's plan was to take pharmaceuticals at a loss in order to generate traffic into the store. Sort of like selling an XBox at a loss in order to build a user base that buys lots of games. But I don't know if that model works for the government. I guess it could offset/hide losses with increased taxation.
4) What would be the impact to all retail pharmacies if the government is acting as another Walmart? Microsoft killed Netscape by effectively giving away a crappier version of Netscape's sole product.

Regardless, the idea has my interest piqued and sounds like something worth looking into.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

While I disagree, you haven't proven it's wrong. Your statement was "the reform plan would address the population as a whole" as opposed to merely property owners. I asked, and you still have not answered whether you are talking about paying for the government health care system.

do "only the rich" pay taxes or pay for the health insurance under the proposals? the answer is a resounding no. the population as a whole pays taxes, and those insured will pay premiums.

[Mavdog]

wal mart has acted towards the pharmacy just like it has done to their other products- cut out the middleman. in reality wal mart has become a "pharmacy benefits manager" to those consumers buying their prescriptions.

an interesting article on the subject of PBM's I saw this am:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Battle Erupts Over Disclosure on Drug Prices

By JANE ZHANG
Some Democratic lawmakers looking for ways to overhaul the nation's health-care system are targeting the companies that handle drug benefits for more than 210 million Americans, setting off a lobbying battle over how much pricing information the companies should disclose.

One version of the health legislation passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last month includes provisions that could overhaul how pharmacy-benefit managers -- middlemen hired by insurers to administer prescription-drug benefits -- operate. It would require them to inform the government or federally approved health plans about differences between the average cost of drugs to the PBM and what the PBM charges insurers. It would also require PBMs to disclose rebates they receive from drug makers for pushing certain pills and say whether those rebates are passed on to insurers.

The goal of the provisions is to drive into the open any cases in which PBMs are earning improper profit margins or rebates, said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.), the lead sponsor of the provisions. He said his legislation will "cut down on inside deals that benefit only the PBMs and the drug companies."

PBMs use their buying power to wring lower prices from drug makers and say they save money for employers, the government and others who pay for health care. Most health-insurance companies, including those running Medicare's drug plans, hire PBMs to manage drug benefits.

Typically, pharmacy-benefit managers have carried out pricing negotiations behind closed doors, leaving insurers and other outsiders little idea of the actual prices PBMs negotiate for drugs or their profit margin.

The PBMs argue such secrecy is necessary to negotiate lower prices, but critics say it only helps PBMs pocket more money at the expense of others.

The president of the pharmacy-benefit managers' trade group called the provisions a bad idea. "One of the great services PBMs provide is to play drug companies off one another and get big discounts on drugs," said Mark Merritt of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. "The thing that drives prices down is competition, not this kind of transparency which tends to help suppliers keep prices higher."

Greater transparency could result in drug makers giving smaller discounts to PBMs, which could lead to higher drug costs for insurers and consumers, according to analyses by the Congressional Budget Office of previous legislative proposals.

The Weiner provisions aren't in versions of the health-care bill passed by other House committees. In the Senate, Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.), a member of the Finance Committee, said she wanted her committee's health-care bill to include similar disclosure requirements for PBMs.

Some companies that offer drug benefits to employees are taking action on their own. Nearly 60 large employers accounting for more than $4.9 billion in annual drug spending, including McDonald's Corp. and International Business Machines Corp., have banded together to demand greater transparency from pharmacy-benefit managers.

They have signed on 15 PBMs, including industry leaders Medco Health Solutions Inc. and CVS Caremark Corp., that are willing to disclose to the companies their acquisition costs for drugs and pass along any additional discounts they get.

One of the companies, Caterpillar Co., also negotiated prices for the drugs its employees buy from Wal-Mart Stores Inc., although it still uses a PBM to handle claims.

Troy Filipek, an actuary at consulting firm Milliman Inc., predicted that more companies will seek alternatives to traditional PBMs. "I think in general, plans just want to have an understanding of where PBMs are making their money," he said.

Independent pharmacies, which have lost money as PBMs expanded into Medicare's drug benefit in recent years, said secretive pricing techniques benefit PBMs more than employers and consumers. A prescription, for example, costs the pharmacies more under a PBM system because they often have to hire other middlemen to make sure PBMs aren't underpaying them.

The National Community Pharmacists Association, an industry group, has beefed up lobbying against PBMs, hiring outside lawyers and increasing political contributions, said spokesman Kevin Schweers.

The group's lobbyists are talking to Sen. Cantwell and are trying to persuade leading Democrats to include the PBM provision in the House's final health-care legislation, said John Coster, the group's senior vice president for government affairs.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do "only the rich" pay taxes or pay for the health insurance under the proposals? the answer is a resounding no. the population as a whole pays taxes, and those insured will pay premiums.

Yea, but those paying premiums to fund the plan are only the ones in the public option. As for "the population as a whole pays taxes," quite a lot of people don't pay any taxes, and it's clear that only the rich will have a tax increase.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Yea, but those paying premiums to fund the plan are only the ones in the public option. As for "the population as a whole pays taxes," quite a lot of people don't pay any taxes, and it's clear that only the rich will have a tax increase.

this is in regard to your post:

"If you are referring to who pays the bills, it's not the population as a whole; it's only the rich"

so what did you mean? it is clear that the comment "only the rich" will "pay the bill" is not factual, it's wrong.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this is in regard to your post:

"If you are referring to who pays the bills, it's not the population as a whole; it's only the rich"

so what did you mean? it is clear that the comment "only the rich" will "pay the bill" is not factual, it's wrong.

Yea, you're right. I was thinking only of who would pay shortfalls and forgot about the premium payers.