New healthcare bill isn't dreaded socialism

[Covar]

Insurance companies screw people because they have to. Why? Due to all the regulations, rules and strictures the Government puts on them. I still believe that if we completely and utterly deregulated every industry, we'd be a lot better off.

ah yes, the golden age of the 1860s-1920s, ain't nothin wrong ever happened to the economy then! that was the best idea ever, I wonder what stopped it.....

Teddy Roosevelt beat the ever living shit out of those companies.

I'm all for deregulation, but you can't be stupid about it. MrHaha is an anarchist, not a conservative. Also a privatized military and police force are about the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. A military cannot function without the loyalty tie to its country. I'm trying to think of a public works group (police, fire, ems) that is different. Healthcare however can and does operate properly in the private sector, as with almost anything YMMV.

 

[Espy]

I can't speak to regulation, but I would bet a years pay that if they dealt with some real Tort Reform we would see some amazing changes to medical costs. My father was a doctor and I know what kind of insurance issues he had to deal with, you know why it cost so much to see him? That was a big part of it.
The problem is that it's never going to happen. The malpractice lawyers tend to be big political donors.
Here's a good little editorial in the Detroit News about it:

Tort reform are two words we haven't heard President Barack Obama speak seriously as he pledges to make his universal health care plan pay for itself through cost-cutting.
But we'll know the president and congressional Democrats are serious about reform when they're willing to take on one of their most reliable interest groups -- plaintiff's lawyers.
Obama has said he is worried about physicians practicing "defensive medicine" to protect themselves against malpractice claims, but he also has ruled out what he has called "artificial caps" on jury awards in malpractice cases.
Advertisement

The primary reason doctors order up all those tests Obama has questioned is to cover their backsides in case of a lawsuit. Real savings from the health care system will be difficult to achieve as long as doctors and hospitals are so vulnerable to the legal system.
In 2007, according to a survey by the consulting firm Towers Perrin, the American civil liability, or tort, system imposed $252 billion in costs on the U.S. economy. The cost of defending and paying medical malpractice claims accounted for about $30 billion of that total.
Consider that the estimated annual cost of ObamaCare is pegged at about $100 billion, and it's easy to see how to find some of the money to pay for it.
Between 1997 and 2007, the cost of dealing with medical torts nearly doubled -- from $15.5 billion to $30.4 billion.
What is unquantifiable is the degree to which the threat of liability affected the practice of medicine, making it more defensive and thus more expensive. Economic studies and various claims by physicians and attorneys differ.
In Britain, the loser in a civil suit must pay the costs of the winner, which cuts down on the filing of risky lawsuits, including malpractice. In France, malpractice claims are settled by a special panel, similar to Michigan's Workers Compensation Commission.
If Democrats are determined to give Americans a European-style health system with heavy government involvement, they should also make the American tort law system more like the European model.
So far in Congress, attempts to create "special courts" for malpractice claims in the context of health care reform have been met with furious opposition from the lawyers who fund the lawmakers' campaign accounts.
But Congress can't call what it is doing comprehensive health care reform without providing meaningful relief from the threat of unwarranted malpractice lawsuits.

 

[GasBandit]

The reason medical insurance has gotten so ridiculous is that people have disassociated cost from medical care. They think their coverage is a medical payment plan in perpetuity, not insurance. They think that aside from a (low) deductible, they should never have to pay more than copay when they're paying monthly premiums, so they run to the doctor for every bump, bruise and sniffle and don't want to have to pay for it because they "already paid." The answer for this problem is to turn medical insurance back into INSURANCE. Very very high deductibles. Basically, you have insurance in case you get hit by a bus or develop cancer, but you pay out of pocket when you get the flu or break your leg.

Another reason, and I'm sorry to say this is something Obama is right about but he can't say it out loud because people don't want to hear it - we spend huge amounts of money prolonging the life of the elderly by only a few years. Nobody wants to say "your 100 year old gramma has lived long enough," but the pragmatic truth is that's where the money is all getting eaten up. So until we're ready to start embedding palmflowers in people's hands, we're going to have to accept that medical care costs money.

Another reason is people think for some bizarre reason they have a "right" to health care. Nobody is entitled to the time and treasure of another person. For you to have a right to health care, you are saying that the government can force (at de facto gunpoint) a doctor who has spent years and years of his life and put himself into super-debt to become what he is to spend more of his time and treasure to see you at a price he cannot set. That's about as antithetical to the american concept of liberty as you can get.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

For clarity: If Canadian healthcare is what you say, why do so many Canadians come here for health care? These aren't facts and figures pulled off of some ultra right wing conspiracy website, designed specifically to foil your position in the debate. These are REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost. Is there some massive flaw in their reasoning? Are they just retarded?

Fantastic, we're at the level of people we know

I'll go with this one then:

The NHS has saved the lives of people that I know, and they haven't had to pay for the privilege. My family have got hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of treatment due to long term health problems. In the US insurance wouldn't have covered it, because it was a known problem, which would have left us with the choice of a debilitating bill or the death of a loved one. What a choice?!? But here, we were able to get treatment promptly. All the treatment we needed. All the drugs we needed. When it was needed.

So if we're at the level of your "REAL people, in fear for their health and seeking immediate medical treatment, no matter the cost", then don't ever try to tell me that "the NHS is an insolvent nightmare of terrible care quality and skyrocketing expense", because you know what? It's not gonna fly.

 

[Bubble181]

Belgium includes births to its armed forces living outside Belgium but not births to foreign armed forces living in Belgium.

Incorrect. Belgium counts any and all which are born as Belgian citizens. Babies born to armed forces abroad are, generally, made a citizen of the nation of their parents, not of their birth; however, this is the choice of the parents.

It may be a trivial and insignificant bit in your whole wall of text, but it still lowers the reliability of your source.

Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.

 

[Espy]

Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.

See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.

 

[Bubble181]

Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.

See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.

Our health care system is seperated from our other taxes; it comes to about 14% of our paycheck. 52% is the second-highest tax range, not including forementioned 14% (and social security comes after that. And the employer pays a seperate 33% employer's tax. Yes, we're slightly tax-happy, and americans and brits should stop whining about their high taxes :-P)

Anyway, the partially-privatized is the most dangerous form of health care. No-one can be forced to make this decision at 18; so it'd be possible to "opt in" pretty much whenever...which, of course, makesi t horribly impossible to work, since 80% or so of the costs are incurred after you've stopped working.

Heck, I'm all in favour of obligatory euthanasia at 80, but apparently that's not very politically correct :-P

 

[JCM]

Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.

See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.

Ouch, problem is, soon we´d have other "we dont need" the government groups like the NRA wanting to make paying for policemen optional.

 

[Espy]

Anyway, I live in a country with very strong health care, and I love it. I don't mind paying additional taxes for it.

See now, if there was some form of government healthcare that people could choose to pay 52% of their income into and then get I would be ok with it. Go for it, have fun, let those who want pay into it and get it and those who don't can pay for their own.

Ouch, problem is, soon we´d have other "we dont need" the government groups like the NRA wanting to make paying for policemen optional.

Nah, there are things that the majority of people believe are necessary to having a functional society, few would think the police are one of them. Health care? It's not as cut and dried amongst the population.

 

[JCM]

Either you underestimate the stupidity of people, or I have waaaay too little faith in humanity.

 

[Steve]

I'm for univeral health care with a mandatory physical every year. If you opt out of the physical then you pay 30% more taxes. If you smoke, are overweight, have a drug or alcohol problem or engage in any behavior that increases your risk to put a strain on healthcare which otherwise could have been prevented then you should get taxed at a higher rate. No sense in punishes people like me who are in prime physical condition. In fact those of us that are in perfect health, the kind that makes doctors get wet, we should pay less taxes.

 

[Espy]

Either you underestimate the stupidity of people, or I have waaaay too little faith in humanity.

Hey, I agree there are people who think that sort of thing, I'm just not worried about the amount of them making a difference.

 

[MrHaha]

Heh, here;s a thought:

Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.

Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. Hell, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.

The fact of the matter is this: If you help people too much, they become dependent and unable to do anything on their own. That needs to stop before our nation turns into a bunch of children doing what ever the government says. It sounds heartless and cold, but if you can't do for yourself and you aren't contributing to society, you should not expect any kind of help or care from people.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.

This is legitimately one of the worst ideas I've heard, and my old roommate/best friend is a staunch libertarian that I listened to on occasion.

EDIT: and I have listened to probably hundreds of hours of Rush Limbaugh

EDIT2: I also went to a John McCain campaign rally last summer

 

[Iaculus]

Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. *, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.

Man, are you seriously holding up Blackwater as an ideal? Do some more background reading. Please.

Better-paid =/= better training, better discipline, and better standards of conduct.

 

[Bubble181]

Heh, here;s a thought:

Why not take every NRA chapter and incorporate it into a large business, eventually giving them the job of the Police Force while slowly phasing out the old police force.

Adding to that, I don't think the military would be any less effective if it were privatized. Hell, it'd be more effective. Again, look at how much better a Blackwater PMC trooper is paid compared to a soldier in the army/ect.

The fact of the matter is this: If you help people too much, they become dependent and unable to do anything on their own. That needs to stop before our nation turns into a bunch of children doing what ever the government says. It sounds heartless and cold, but if you can't do for yourself and you aren't contributing to society, you should not expect any kind of help or care from people.

A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.

Steve: you're male. You'd be taxed more than a female ;-)

 

[Norris]

I can't speak to regulation, but I would bet a years pay that if they dealt with some real Tort Reform we would see some amazing changes to medical costs. My father was a doctor and I know what kind of insurance issues he had to deal with, you know why it cost so much to see him? That was a big part of it.
The problem is that it's never going to happen. The malpractice lawyers tend to be big political donors.
Here's a good little editorial in the Detroit News about it:

Ok, I am ok to preface this by saying I am uneducated on the concept of tort reform. But every time I hear it "simplified", it translates to "protect doctors from losing big lawsuits". While I can sympathize with wanting to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, I have a slight personal reason to not see a cap put on damages that can be awarded to patients. See, my best friend in high school benefited from a lawsuit that paid out a big time amount (though she was unclear on just how much). Apparently, when she was born the doctor (who was older and a little bit older school, according to her parents at least) used some kind of tongs (likely with a better name) to pull her out. He squeezed too hard, and she ended up with birth defects because of it. One of her hands is largely useless (fully formed but the fingers don't really move) and one of her legs was shorter than the other (to the point of giving her a kind of limping walk, at least until she sacrificed a summer to get surgery to alleviate it). She qualifies as handicapped because of all this. Because a doctor fucked up before she was even out of her mother. And you bet her parents sued, and you bet they got a lot of money. As they should have.

And that's why I'm always leary of "tort reform" as applied to doctors. Because it always seems to come off as "let's prevent people from suing doctors because without doctors everybody would be worse off". Then again, most political discourse I read comes from IMDB, which is at least 50% trolls. So who knows. I don't.

EDIT: Yes, let's turn a bunch of untrained civilians into our police force. Nothing could go wrong. BTW, how would we decide jurisdictions for these private police forces? Who would administer the private corrections and court facilities this would require? Who would provide oversight to these private organizations to ensure they follow rules of evidence?

I also point out that the Iraqi government is kicking Blackwater out their country. Not U.S. Troops, just the mercenaries. I wonder why. :eyeroll:

 

[Bubble181]

She qualifies as handicapped because of all this. Because a doctor fucked up before she was even out of her mother. And you bet her parents sued, and you bet they got a lot of money. As they should have.

Why? A friend of mine had a similar issue - her son was born, due to an error of the doctor, the son was without oxygen for a few minutes, heavy brain damage, lasting serious debilitating effects (wheelchair and about the intellectual capacities of a 5 year old - he's 19 now).
Now, as stated before, I live in one of those places where health care IS pretty universal. And where there's no such thing as punitive damages. Anyway, the son went to a specialized school, for free. He's in a specialized institute - for free. They've received help for the household on those days/times when he couldn't stay at school. They receive a special fee from the government to help in the life with a severely handicapped person (to make house adjustments for his wheelchair, etc). The doctor had the case reviewed and was sentenced to, IIRC, 2 years suspension of his license, and a fine of a couple thousand dollars.
Why should that doctor pay more; or shoudl they receive more? It makes no sense to me to give someone millions because they have a handicapped child; especially since others, who got a child with similar problems, don't get any help whatsoever. You chose to get a child; you accepted the chance there'd be something wrong with it. Why should the doctor be forced to pay for the rest of his life for one (perhaps minor) mistake? Have a medical board review it and decide upon how much it was he who was in the wrong, not a judge.

*shrug* That's just me and the majority i nBelgium, though.

 

[Norris]

Why should he be forced to pay for the rest of his life? Because she and her family are going to have to pay for the rest of hers, both monetarily and with social perceptions (she's lost several "good" friends because they made jokes about her condition behind her back).

 

[Bubble181]

Monetarily, they really aren't much worse off - in a state where there's decent health care; plus, the government provides them with aid. Socially - frankly, they were bad friends, good riddance. It's not a problem of the doctor's if they have friends with bad tastes in humour or a lack of empathy.

My point's simple: for them, the difference between a baby born with a genetic or natural birth defect and one born with a birth defect caused by medical incompetence is nil. In the US system, parents with the one receive next-to-nothing, hile the second receives, with some "luck" (I do agree it's not exactly a fitting choice of words, given the circumstances; most parents wouldp robably prefer just having their child without the birth defect) millions of dollars. In the Belgian system, both receive similar and equal care and help, while in the second case they'll also receive some reimbursement by the doctor for his mistake (I believe the maximum that can be awarded by a judge is somewhere in the $500,000 ballpark, though that's pretty much if the doctor made a MAJOR mistake that could and should have been easily avoided by even a novice), and the doctor receives punishment by a bench of equals who determine his medical qualities and whether or not he should be allowed to practice medicine again and if so, when. It seems to make more sense, to me.

 

[Espy]

Ok, I am ok to preface this by saying I am uneducated on the concept of tort reform. But every time I hear it \"simplified\", it translates to \"protect doctors from losing big lawsuits\". While I can sympathize with wanting to get rid of frivolous lawsuits, I have a slight personal reason to not see a cap put on damages that can be awarded to patients. See, my best friend in high school benefited from a lawsuit that paid out a big time amount (though she was unclear on just how much). Apparently, when she was born the doctor (who was older and a little bit older school, according to her parents at least) used some kind of tongs (likely with a better name) to pull her out. He squeezed too hard, and she ended up with birth defects because of it. One of her hands is largely useless (fully formed but the fingers don't really move) and one of her legs was shorter than the other (to the point of giving her a kind of limping walk, at least until she sacrificed a summer to get surgery to alleviate it). She qualifies as handicapped because of all this. Because a doctor smurfed up before she was even out of her mother. And you bet her parents sued, and you bet they got a lot of money. As they should have.

I agree, the idea is not to get rid of any responsibility regarding doc's. It's about changing a system that is specifically engineered to make money for lawyers and in doing so create a medical system that is not actually trying to help you but instead to legally protect itself, making EVERYONE suffer both financially and in their own medical procedures.
I'm not saying your friend didn't deserve some compensation. I am saying that it doesn't mean the way the legal system is set up regarding doc's and their insurance, etc, is a good thing. A lot of people are getting rich on those lawsuits, and most of the time it's the guy charging 500 dollars an hour.

EDIT: Here's another pretty good article about it and the focus on defensive medicine and how much money is involved. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_12973517

 

[Norris]

My point's simple: for them, the difference between a baby born with a genetic or natural birth defect and one born with a birth defect caused by medical incompetence is nil. In the US system, parents with the one receive next-to-nothing, hile the second receives, with some "luck" (I do agree it's not exactly a fitting choice of words, given the circumstances; most parents wouldp robably prefer just having their child without the birth defect) millions of dollars.

We basically have to agree to disagree, because I'm coming at this from the perspective of living in the U.S. But I have two points to make:
1) I disagree with the comparison mainly in that in the case of medical incompetence, it could have been prevented. Genetics can't be changed (or selected for cheaply) but a doctor's mistake could be avoided. To me, it's the difference between a car accident caused by a black ice versus one caused by a negligent driver. In one case, it was incredibly difficult to catch in time to avoid while the other was caused by the direct actions of someone.
2) Normally it's thousands. Not millions. Unless a doctor is fantastically well-to-do or screwed up in a way that defies belief.

It's about changing a system that is specifically engineered to make money for lawyers and in doing so create a medical system that is not actually trying to help you but instead to legally protect itself, making EVERYONE suffer both financially and in their own medical procedures.

Fair enough. But the solution isn't then capping how much a victim can collect, but capping how much of a percentage the lawyer is allowed to take of that. If it's the lawyers abusing the system, punish them. Not the patients.

 

[SpecialKO]

A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.

Not to mention, what if the company's short-term debt was bought out by another country or company?

The debt-holder could legally force the company to layoff employees, take possession of or sell off its assets, or even force a change of executive leadership.

Talk about a "hostile takeover".

 

[Mr_Chaz]

A 100% privatized army would mean your country is, effectively, run by that company. Wonderful.

Not to mention, what if the company's short-term debt was bought out by another country or company?

The debt-holder could legally force the company to layoff employees, take possession of or sell off its assets, or even force a change of executive leadership.

Talk about a "hostile takeover".

And what's the incentive for that company to win a war? As soon as the war's done you don't need the army any more, so there are big layoffs, and you're left with no standing army. Or what if the company goes broke? Or what if, to prevent a monopoly you have several private armies in a country, what would make them work well together? What's to stop them from fighting each other in a bloody civil war?

 

[Frank]

Man, I had a hell of a day yesterday with Canada's nightmarish healthcare system. I woke up with a bad clog in my ear (something I am prone to. I get horrible wax clogs that render me deaf in that ear) and was forced to go see a doctor for a proper flushing. So, I walk the two blocks to the local public health clinic and go inside, the receptionist tells me there will be about a half hours wait. I am ok with this as I am a walk in and did not make an appointment. So I sit in the waiting room and read a little bit of the third Harry Potter book when, and I am not kidding this actually happened, they called me in in only 16 minutes. Fuck, what a horrible experience. Then I walk into the examination room, explain to the doctor my issue, he takes me to the room with the sink and the nifty syringe and he flushes my ear out. Voila, I can hear again.

Man, my country's healthcare system blows.

 

[crono1224]

Man, I had a * of a day yesterday with Canada's nightmarish healthcare system. I woke up with a bad clog in my ear (something I am prone to. I get horrible wax clogs that render me deaf in that ear) and was forced to go see a doctor for a proper flushing. So, I walk the two blocks to the local public health clinic and go inside, the receptionist tells me there will be about a half hours wait. I am ok with this as I am a walk in and did not make an appointment. So I sit in the waiting room and read a little bit of the third Harry Potter book when, and I am not kidding this actually happened, they called me in in only 16 minutes. smurf, what a horrible experience. Then I walk into the examination room, explain to the doctor my issue, he takes me to the room with the sink and the nifty syringe and he flushes my ear out. Voila, I can hear again.

Man, my country's healthcare system blows.

So this is after you crossed the boarder into america for that?
Or did you slip him some money?
Clearly you can't get decent care in a decent time.

 

[Covar]

funny my friend I go swimming with had pretty much the exact same story when he had to get his ears cleaned. only difference was he gave his insurance information.

 

[Biardo]

I'm for univeral health care with a mandatory physical every year. If you opt out of the physical then you pay 30% more taxes. If you smoke, are overweight, have a drug or alcohol problem or engage in any behavior that increases your risk to put a strain on healthcare which otherwise could have been prevented then you should get taxed at a higher rate. No sense in punishes people like me who are in prime physical condition. In fact those of us that are in perfect health, the kind that makes doctors get wet, we should pay less taxes.

I allready pay enough taxes on those