..................................................................
thats really what should have happened years ago and we wouldnt still be talking about health care
o"s speech tonite
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
thats really what should have happened years ago and we wouldnt still be talking about health care
...................................................................
Well I would rather be that than DTB black Gumby
dammit !
...........................................................In fact, over his entire congressional career, health professionals represent Wilson?s top industry contributors, donating a total of $244,196 to his campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics OpenSecrets.org database. He received another $86,150 from pharmaceutical companies, $73,050 from insurance companies and $68,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.
Among Wilson?s top contributors are the American Hospital Association, a lobby group that represents the interests of hospitals and health networks, and the American Medical Association, which represents physicians.
Yeah, this is the guy I would want out there representing "me"... nice hero you guys have.
nice post
how did I know that already :shrug:
Anyone know how much Congress cheapest health care plan is for the year ?
its probably 2 grand for complete coverage of anything possible that could go wrong.
Don't mean to hijack this, but this comment really bothers me.
IF the government was on equal ground with the insurers, I'd be for it. But they never will be. Insurance companies:
1. Must hold a significant amount for reserves - especially for IBNR claims reserves (incurred but not reported). The Gov plan likley would be pay as you go and would not have to.
2. Insurers must pay premium tax - the goverment won't.
3. Clearly, the goverment won't reimburse the doctors and hospitals at the same levels that insurance companies do. At first glance, you'd ask, what's so bad about that? A number of things will happen: doctors and hospitals will opt out of the Govemment plan, since it has inadequate reimbursement rates (like many do now regarding Medicare patients). Private insurance will be charged more by the providers - especially by those who do still accept govemment patients (cost shifting). Eventually private insurance will be very expensive and likely cease to be. OR, private insurance will flourish among the rich - and hospitals will give preferential treatment (waiting lines) for those who are using the government insurance - and folks won't like that either.
4. Clearly private companies need to make a profit to exist. That is the basis of capitalism. The Government does not need to make a profit - they don't even need to have operating reserves - if they need more money, then just tax more.
There are MANY industries that could be cheaper if the government ran it: Fast Food (A Big Mac and fries could be less than $1.00), Grocery stores, Liquor stores (minus the sin tax), automobile companies (oops, we own that already), etc....
I don't think the government should ever compete against private companies.
JMHO.
Are you kidding me? $2,000? Not if it is as rich as I think it is.
Of course, it depends on if it is single or family coverage.
That "Perk" of a benefit plan probably is worth $3,000 for singles, $6,000 for families - maybe more.
But that rich of coverage isn't necessary - preventative care and doctor visits are like routine oil changes - they should be paid out of pocket, as insurance is for unforeseen catastrophic events - not day to day health care expenses.
To bend the cost curve as Obama says? We need to shift public attitudes, that everything is free and covered. We also need to stop being so fat and leading such unhealthy lifestyles (myself included)
...............................................................
My brother in law lives in Germany.
They have full dental coverage as long as they go twice a year for cleanings and get routine work done. They sign off on each patient.
If you dont go they cut your coverage and your on your own.
To me that is the best way to get people to do the preventative stuff. Even the most stupid dumb asses would not miss a appointment if it meant they had to pay in the future.
................................................................
Mags
yeh but what if we found out they only had to contribute 1000 a year for the best full coverage.
how would that make you feel.
But they aint telling because Americans might stand up and try to change it then.
Scott:
Doesn't bother me one bit, to be honest.
Health Coverage, 401K, vacation days are all part of the compensation package at employers. Usually there is a tradeoff between great health coverage and pay (think teachers or almost any union worker).
I would think the same goes for government positions - they get the best benefits, but not necessarily the best pay. Many of the higher level goverment workers could make a lot more $$$ in private industry.
But politiicans aren't typically in it for the money - they are in it for the power. Which, by the way, is why so many of them cheat on their spouses. It is a power thing for them and women are drawn to powerful men.
It is never wise to begrudge what someone else has, when it is totally in your power to get what you want in this country.
Frankly, the comment above is probably the best example of the difference in mindset between a REP and DEM.
They don't want tort reform. That's a known fact. Why wouldn't they want healthcare reform? They could care less about healthcare reform as long as there is no reform to malpractice laws. Common sense. Hpward Dean already said, there will be no tort reform because they do not want to have to battle the trial lawyers and their lobbyists.
Thanks for your post, Mags, some food for thought there. Are you in the insurance business? You seem to have a good knowledge of how the game is played. I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proposals that are being bantered about. I'm sure there are bad things as well as good things, but I'll just address your points here.
1. Why would the government reserve situation be different from a private insurance one as far as reserves go? In theory, I could see how they'd need even more in reserve, if they were to make inroads in insuring what I would assume to be a lot of people, perhaps more than even the top 2/3 insurers, who have large clientele, for sure. How would pay as you go, as you say, be different from a reserves standpoint?
2. How much is the premium tax? I have no idea, would like to know. I'm guessing currently it's something added to my bill, at the moment, I doubt they just eat it, with the way things are set up now. But I can see your point, an added tax that the government doesn't pay, would be an unfair advantage. But I have to say that the way things are now, the insurers definitely hold a few advantages, that are making them plenty of money, off the backs of everyone that pays.
3. A lot to digest here. My initial question is why would insurance companies pay more to doctors and hospitals than the government would pay? You say it in a matter of fact way, just wondering why specifically you say that. Is it because it doesn't matter too much to them what they pay, because they can currently pass that cost along to consumers, and it's the status quo and way healthcare is handled now? Why would the government pay less? Because they would be able to negotiate and help keep costs down due to representing a larger number of people? Isn't that what competition is all about? Many on the right don't seem to be bothered by lack of competition between the biggest insurance companies, two or three hold most of the cards, and can essentially work together to keep the money high. That's what they do, to make profits - and big ones. Nothing wrong with profit, if it's fair and real competition is in play. Doctors and hospitals charge a lot, insurance companies charge a lot, big pharma charges an incredible amount of money for their products which are usually exclusive and have little competition on many medicines and treatments, and the only people who end up paying a lot for all of this is you and me, and Joe sixpack plumber. I can see your scenario, but there's nothing to make anything happen and change where things are headed. Status quo is killing most of us, and the economy is suffering in part because of it. Is it going to get better by itself?
4. I agree with this point, and I think it's at the root of what's wrong with the current system. The current system works great for a few select companies that are controlling the market, and are shrinking it as much as they can. Controls on this have been lessened, allowing them to do what they want, and buy what they want, subsequently charging what they want. It's far from free market capitalism, it's a closed market, in many respects. I don't think many people agree that a monopoly is good for an economic sector, and as you mention, the government doesn't have to turn a profit. They don't HAVE to do the things the companies do, nor would they have any motivation to do it. The government has always safeguarded the consumer by preventing these kinds of practices. Or at least part of the government has - until recently, when big business has become big business for some politicians and administrations.
Again, I do appreciate your post. It's nice discussing something for a change. And you make some good points.
Keeko, I think tort reform should be a part of the picture, and I'm not defending that. I think all of the areas should be up for debate and reform, if it will help out this country, and the citizens. I think the right to sue is an important one, but the amounts of monies awarded in some cases is ridiculous.
People need to be able to sue and collect fair payment from physicians and hospitals who injure them through malpractice. It's a serious problem. Medical errors are the third leading cause of death. That's a lot of screw-ups.
http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm
Tort reform is a Republican red herring. Tort reform does NOT save money.
CA, MO and SC all have tort reform. Has the cost of malpractice insurance in those states gone down? NO. Has the cost of medical care gone down? NO.
Tort reform is a means of putting more dollars in the pockets of insurance companies. And why would politicians want to do that? Simple: bribes....er "contributions".
Max Baucus received over $2 million from Insurance companies. Can you say "bribe"...er, "contribution". Of course that sack-o-shit is stalling on health care reform.
We'd have better government if the Mafia ran it. More honest too.
Last edited:
Well said Muffster. Tort reform has been around in most states for 20 years now. Since its enactment, malpractice suit filings are way down. recovery caps for non-economic damages are standard in most states. Insurance company profits are at record highs. Doctors and hospitals continue to commit medical mistakes with impunity yet, the liability insurance industry, with their bought and sold republican shills in the house and senate continue to sing the same old song blaming their favorite whipping boys, the lawyers for all the ills of rising health care costs. And your average, fly over red state, church goin, flag wavin, gun tottin, bush lovin, republican moron slurps it up like those idiots you see at the tea parties.
By the way, don't blame Congressman Wilson for his outburst last night. He just got his presidents mixed up.
Eddie
Oh, yeah, Congressman Boner from here in southwest Ohio got 3.7 million in campaign contributions from the insurance companies. This is the same clown that was passing tobacco lobbyist money around on the senate floor. One of the dumbest men ever to walk on the planet.
Here in southwest Ohio we have John Boner and Jean Schmidt as our representatives. Goes to show you how bright the electorate is around here. Then again these are the same people who have sold out the Bengals for 44 straight games. Short on iq to say the least.
By the way, don't blame Congressman Wilson for his outburst last night. He just got his presidents mixed up.
Eddie
Oh, yeah, Congressman Boner from here in southwest Ohio got 3.7 million in campaign contributions from the insurance companies. This is the same clown that was passing tobacco lobbyist money around on the senate floor. One of the dumbest men ever to walk on the planet.
Here in southwest Ohio we have John Boner and Jean Schmidt as our representatives. Goes to show you how bright the electorate is around here. Then again these are the same people who have sold out the Bengals for 44 straight games. Short on iq to say the least.
Last edited:
I'll bet the tort reformers would be crying the blues if some blind drunk surgeon castrated them instead of doing the appendectomy they expected.
Say...does Karl Rove need some minor surgery? I know just the doc for him.
Glad you brought up tort reform Edward--
Tell me how it is feasible that tort reform would not lower cost--just one fact please--
Tort reform has occurred in many states and I know of none that has repealed any changes because they didn't work--or weren't satisfied with them.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Tort Reform Since 1986 - By State <!-- End of Headline -->[/FONT]</TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cc0000 colSpan=2 height=1>
[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][SIZE=-2]2005 Tort Reform Summary > Tort Reform Since 1986 - By State[/SIZE][/FONT] <!-- End of Subhead -->
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>
of States
</TD><TD>Summary</TD><TD></TD><TD>States That Have Enacted the Reform</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=5><HR width="100%" SIZE=1></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Modify Joint-and-Several Liability</TD><TD align=middle>38</TD><TD>States have based the amount for which a defendant can be held liable on the proportion of fault attributed, but the formulas differ substantially from state to state. In addition, most of the reforms apply to specific types of torts or have other restrictions.</TD><TD></TD><TD>Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Modify the Collateral-Source Rule</TD><TD align=middle>25</TD><TD>Typical reforms either permit evidence of collateral-source payments to be admitted at trial, allow awards to plaintiffs to be offset by other payments, or both.</TD><TD></TD><TD>Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,* Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,* Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=5></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Limit Noneconomic Damages</TD><TD align=middle>23</TD><TD>The caps range from $250,000 to $750,000. More than half of the reforms apply to torts involving medical malpractice.</TD><TD></TD><TD>Alabama,* Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,* Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire,* North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,* Texas, Washington,* West Virginia, Wisconsin</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=5></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD>Limit Punitive Damages</TD><TD align=middle>34</TD><TD>Various types of limits include outright bans; fixed dollar caps ranging from $250,000 to $10 million; and caps equal to a multiple of compensatory awards.</TD><TD></TD><TD>Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,* Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>They had extensive research in Texas where tort reform was most stringent--entire link to Perryman Report--quite lengthy in PFD format .
The changes to medical liability in 2003 were extraordinary, and had a very substantial impact, including:
1. In August 2004, the Texas Hospital Association reported a 70% reduction in the number of lawsuits filed against the state?s hospitals.
2. Medical liability insurance rates declined. Many doctors saw average rate reductions of over 21%, with some doctors seeing almost 50% decreases. (Recent information provided to The Perryman Group during the course of this study suggests that premiums are declining even further in 2008.)
3. Beginning in 2003, physicians started returning to Texas. The Texas Medical Board reports licensing 10,878 new physicians since 2003, up from 8,391 in the prior four years. Perryman has determined that at least 1,887 of those physicians are specifically the result of lawsuit reform.
4. In May 2006, the American Medical Association removed Texas from its list of states experiencing a liability crisis, marking the first time it has removed any state from the list. A recent survey by the Texas Medical Association also found a dramatic increase in physicians? willingness to resume certain procedures they had stopped performing, including obstetrics, neurosurgical, radiation and oncological procedures.
Last year, TLR commissioned a study by The Perryman Group to figure out the impact of these reforms (the above are excerpted from that report). Here are the economic impact findings of that study:
$112.5 billion increase in annual spending
$51.2 billion increase in annual output ? goods and services produced in Texas
$2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue
$468.9 million in annual benefits from safer products
$15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation
499,000 permanent jobs
430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms
The complete Perryman Group report is here.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Last edited:
Were some interesting polls showing opposite effects also HT
WASHINGTON (CNN) ? Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans ? a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
----
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted just before and just after the president's speech, with 427 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
----------------------------------------
Fox poll
Did the president?s speech change your mind on health care?
<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label for=PDI_feedback1>Yes. 8% (13,803 votes) </LABEL>
<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label for=PDI_feedback2>No. 91% (149,379 votes) </LABEL>
<LABEL class=pds-feedback-label for=PDI_feedback3>I'm not sure. 1% (1,436 votes) </LABEL>
If you poll Foxbots, you'll also find some other interesting results-
Is the earth flat? 88% yes, 2% no, 10% not certain.
How many states are there? 82% say 48, 6 % say 13, 6% say 50, 6% say uncertain.
The Perryman Group? You're quoting Ray Perryman, that lying asshole shill for Republicans?
You'd be better off quoting Mark Sanford. LMAO!
You'd be better off quoting Mark Sanford. LMAO!
