PDA

View Full Version : How That Free Healthcare in the UK Doing???



soonercruiser
12/12/2011, 11:23 PM
The headline in the Daily Oklahoman was "U.K.'s free healthcare faces financing threat"

Would you like to wait a year for a hernia operation when you are acutely symptomatic?
Apparently, that not uncommon in the UK healthcare system.
This is what we would face with Obamacare in the future.


Health Squeeze: UK's free health care under threat
MARIA CHENG Associated Press 0 Published: December 11, 2011


LONDON (AP) — When David Evans needed a hernia operation, the 69-year-old farmer became so alarmed by the long wait that he used an ultrasound machine for pregnant sheep on himself, to make sure he wasn't getting worse.

It was only after repeated calls from himself, his doctor and his local member of parliament that the hospital performed the surgery, nearly a year after it was first requested. Under government guidelines, he should have started getting treatment within 18 weeks.

"I was in quite a lot of pain," Evans said of his ordeal in Cornwall, southwest England. "It really restricted what I could do around the farm since I couldn't lift anything heavy."

Across Britain, an increasing number of patients like Evans are facing more pain and longer waits. That's because the National Health Service is being forced to trim 20 billion pounds ($31 billion) from its budget by 2015, as part of the most radical changes made since the system was founded more than 60 years ago.

For many hospitals, that means saving money by raising the threshold for who qualifies for treatment and extending waiting times for non-lifesaving surgeries.

In January, the government introduced a new health bill that many fear will bring even more draconian cuts and competition from private providers. The bill, now in the process of being adopted, will ax more than 20,000 health jobs in the next two years and shut an undisclosed number of hospitals, possibly including the iconic St. Mary's in London, where Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin.

The medical profession is outraged.
http://newsok.com/article/feed/325859

AlboSooner
12/12/2011, 11:58 PM
People still read the worst newspaper in America?

Plus we already have the Baptist Messenger. Oh yeah I forgot, the Baptist Messenger doesn't do sports.

SCOUT
12/13/2011, 12:27 AM
It is a London (AP) story.

hawaii 5-0
12/13/2011, 12:31 AM
How 'bout a list of countries that have abandoned National Healthcare.


UK Healthcare isn't free. Super high taxes in Britain. The citizens pay for it, out the nose.


5-0

cleller
12/13/2011, 08:01 AM
All of Europe (except Germany) is sliding into a sinkhole due to their many years of entitlements such as this. We're next.

If the Oklahoman is too offensive, the same story is also at Boston.Com and Salon.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2011/12/12/health_squeeze_uks_free_health_care_under_threat/

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/11/health_squeeze_uks_free_health_care_under_threat/

KantoSooner
12/13/2011, 09:27 AM
I really wish we could have had a health care debate. I kept waiting for one, but, alas, we got mumble, mumble from the White House, some closed door meetings on Cap Hill and Republicans reacting to the nothingness by running in little circles shouting 'Socialism!'

We have a national health care system now. And it covers everyone. Doubt me? Go to an emergency room on the first of any month or any given weekend night. It's a system that may or may not be optimal, but make no mistake, we have a system.

We also have, hand's down, the most expensive medical care system in the world. As a nation, we pay more than double what our nearest competition pays. And we get worse results in terms of public health. (although to be fair, if you're in need of heroic medicine or come down with some syndrome that no one's seen before, we are the place to be.)

So, my question to you is: How much should healthcare cost as a percentage of the economy? Let's use GNP as a stand-in for 'the economy'. And let's not worry for the moment about how this money will be collected or doled out. Let's just see if we can reach a rough consensus about how much seems reasonable.

Me, I'd go with somewhere between 6% and 9% of the national pie.

What do you think?

pphilfran
12/13/2011, 09:41 AM
We are currently at 15% or so...

Outside of the US the world avg is about 9%

So I will go with 9%...

So we need to cut costs by 40% or about 900 billion dollars a year (GDP at 15 trillion)...or 3000 for every US citizen...

Ain't gonna happen....

TheHumanAlphabet
12/13/2011, 10:51 AM
All I need to know about Government running or influencing health care is the Indian Health Service or the VA...

KantoSooner
12/13/2011, 10:57 AM
I have a buddy who got a quadruple bypass from the VA. He's made a complete recovery and it cost him less than $1,000 out of pocket. His biggest bitch was that he didn't have a private room.
I can live with that kind of health care.

soonercruiser
12/13/2011, 01:46 PM
I really wish we could have had a health care debate. I kept waiting for one, but, alas, we got mumble, mumble from the White House, some closed door meetings on Cap Hill and Republicans reacting to the nothingness by running in little circles shouting 'Socialism!'

We have a national health care system now. And it covers everyone. Doubt me? Go to an emergency room on the first of any month or any given weekend night. It's a system that may or may not be optimal, but make no mistake, we have a system.

We also have, hand's down, the most expensive medical care system in the world. As a nation, we pay more than double what our nearest competition pays. And we get worse results in terms of public health. (although to be fair, if you're in need of heroic medicine or come down with some syndrome that no one's seen before, we are the place to be.)

So, my question to you is: How much should healthcare cost as a percentage of the economy? Let's use GNP as a stand-in for 'the economy'. And let's not worry for the moment about how this money will be collected or doled out. Let's just see if we can reach a rough consensus about how much seems reasonable.

Me, I'd go with somewhere between 6% and 9% of the national pie.

What do you think?

Kanto,
Don't be distracted by all the arguments.
Obama promised an "open & transparent" administration.
And, promised open hearings on the healthcare legislation.

Did we get what he promised??
NO!
All we got were secret meetings and secret deals with the insurance and drug companies behind closed doors, and Peeloski's quote of "we'll have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it"!

This is as corrupt a legislative process as we have ever had in history!
To say nothing of the hypocrisy on Obama's part!

Ton Loc
12/13/2011, 01:51 PM
Kanto,
Don't be distracted by all the arguments.
Obama promised an "open & transparent" administration.
And, promised open hearings on the healthcare legislation.

Did we get what he promised??
NO!
All we got were secret meetings and secret deals with the insurance and drug companies behind closed doors, and Peeloski's quote of "we'll have to pass the bill so we can see what's in it"!

This is as corrupt a legislative process as we have ever had in history!
To say nothing of the hypocrisy on Obama's part!

So what you're saying is nothing's changed and that politicians lie... shocking...

So what else is new?

KantoSooner
12/13/2011, 02:15 PM
Cruiser, Ton Loc, I think we're in broad agreement that the 'process' used to arrive at...whatever it is that was passed, was highly disappointing, unacceptable and produced something that no one is very happy with.

To me the scariest thing about our healthcare status quo is that the costs keep going up 12%+ a year. That means doubling every six years. With no end in sight. At some point we, as a nation, will simply turn around each month and fork over 100% of everything to insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals. (Obviously not, but you get teh point: costs can not simply keep rising ad infinitum.) We're becoming a nation that works simply to pay the doctor bills. And this hyper inflation has continued my whole life.

This isn't the way it is in Australia (which resembles the US in life style and ethnic mix), it isn't this way in Japan (another wealthy, but aging country). And, say what you want about waiting lines for kidney tranplants or access to cyberknife, the basic healthcare is excellent in both.

I'm all for debating how we distribute health care, and I enjoy being healthy and going to a doctor when I need one, but I'm fascinated that none of the national figures involved in the 'debate' seem interested in the least in how healthcare will be made affordable. And no matter who ultimately pays, it's got to a workable bill.

Dale Ellis
12/13/2011, 02:19 PM
So what you're saying is nothing's changed and that politicians lie... shocking...

So what else is new?

Oh so now it's acceptable. What happened to all the "Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction?" chit the libs were pissing their pants about?

TheHumanAlphabet
12/13/2011, 02:20 PM
I have a buddy who got a quadruple bypass from the VA. He's made a complete recovery and it cost him less than $1,000 out of pocket. His biggest bitch was that he didn't have a private room.
I can live with that kind of health care.

So you got a buddy who got what he earned from his service, that is what should be happening. I can list story after story where the VA has substandard care, substandard doctors who are protected by the government or poor follow-up. There is some good there, but it is not a model system.

No arguement from me on the cost of the system. It is like a run away train. However, people keep wanting everything, pay little for it and then want to make sure nothing bad happens or they will sue the dr. because he didn't do everything to find out an obscure ailment... This society has an unhealthy fixation on living and nothing bad happening... Not sure how we fix that.

Dale Ellis
12/13/2011, 02:21 PM
And, say what you want about waiting lines for kidney tranplants or access to cyberknife, the basic healthcare is excellent in both.

Great, if I have a runny nose, I'm covered, if I need a hip replacement, or heart bypass, I'm *ucked. Sounds good to me where do I sign up? Oh wait, I don't have to sign up Nancy and the crooks on capitol hill already took care of that for me?

soonercruiser
12/13/2011, 02:23 PM
Don't act like somehow this healthcare bill address any of the 3,000 pound gorillas in the room, like tort reform and cross state lines competition!
All the secret deals with the insurance companies and drug companies will insure that costs stay up, with more going into Democratic pockets.
Saying we are all disappointed is a very, very, very mild understatement of most American's feeling about the corruption in Washington!
Obama, Peeloski, and Reid have taken corruption to a new level in Washington, while promising the opposite.
Has the swamp been drained yet?
No! The alligators are still being fed ery well!

badger
12/13/2011, 03:11 PM
England really does have high taxes. For sales, it's like 20 percent and they call it "value added tax." They are gonna make some serious cash off the Olympics, even if they aren't gonna have their usual jock tax in place.

If people start getting fed up with long waits here after Obamacare takes effect, I could see some fringe treatment places opening up that have revolving door speed. If there's a demand for a business, that business will open here. England? Not sure. America? Definitely.

KantoSooner
12/13/2011, 04:00 PM
If we take this conversation the distance, we'll have the chance to beat each other up plenty. I'm not putting forward any prescription as of now for one system over another. I am pointing out that countries not dissimilar to ours in wealth, ethnic makeup, lifestyle and age are achieving vastly superior results (seriously, we are not a terribly healthy country and part of that has to relate to our healthcare system) for something like half the cost. That, it seems to me, is an important aspect to the debate.

Do:

Doctors get paid too much?

Are admin costs too high? If so, why?

Is it all about duplicative testing and needless procedures/tests/meds?

Is that to cover the doctor's *** legally? Or to satisfy bitchy patients who demand it in order to feel 'treated'?

How serious a problem is litigation? (How much do doctors pay out in settlements and judgement? How much in malpractice insurance?)

How much cost is related to outright fraud? (real, criminal stuff, not simple bill padding or the like)

How much is related to waste due to insurance or government rules (medicare won't reimburse dear old dad's wheel chair if we wanted to buy it ($400), but they'd cover nearly the whole thing if we leased with an option (total cost of lease: $800)

Is it ever ethical for an insurance company, or the government if they are the provider, to cut off end of life heroics? Or to limit the care to palliative? (How many seniors do you know who'd opt to be maintained in a vegetative state vs. putting the money into a school breakfast/lunch program?)

If you're tired/bored with this and have read a good overall explanation, I"d appreciate a reference to it.

Thanks

NormanPride
12/13/2011, 04:38 PM
I already answered this crap in a different thread that dale and diver crapped up. It's a racket that has virtually no checks and balances due to the nature of the supplier and the nature of the good.

And we're unhealthy as a culture because it's profitable for everyone to be sick.

Dale Ellis
12/13/2011, 05:08 PM
I already answered this crap in a different thread that dale and diver crapped up. It's a racket that has virtually no checks and balances due to the nature of the supplier and the nature of the good.

And we're unhealthy as a culture because it's profitable for everyone to be sick.

Yes we need the feds to step in and save us all from ourselves. So who's going to pay for all of this "FREE" chit again?

KantoSooner
12/13/2011, 05:25 PM
<sighing deeply>

Like I said above: we're not prescribing a solution at this time. I'm trying parallel processing using human brains. Believe it or not, the posters on this board know more collectively than individually.

I was trying to winkle out any insights having to do with costs, and only costs, at this time.

It really doesn't matter whether I pay for all of mine in cash, with private insurance or via holy dispensation from Uncle Sugar at this stage in the process.

In the immortal words of P.J. O'Rourke, "Why the **** does it cost so ****ing much?"

Soonerfan88
12/13/2011, 06:14 PM
Kanto, I can only address my own experience.

Went to the ER with kidney stones. Nurse said she knew from my 'kidney stone dance' what the issue was before I said a word. Exam only confirmed their first instinct. However, the doctor said they HAD to do an MRI. Even an x-ray wasn't good enough, it had to be an MRI. I was too in pain then drugged to think about asking who said an MRI was required. I certainly didn't ask for it and the ER staff didn't think it necessary for the diagnosis but someone somewhere said it HAD to be done.

If idiotic requirements like this can be eliminated, costs for all would go down. So how do we eliminate this redundancy from the bureaucracy? That is a big debate and needs serious investigation instead of gamesmanship, lobbyist intervention, and political rhetoric. I'll just keep dreaming of the day...

soonercruiser
12/13/2011, 07:35 PM
Kanto, I can only address my own experience.

Went to the ER with kidney stones. Nurse said she knew from my 'kidney stone dance' what the issue was before I said a word. Exam only confirmed their first instinct. However, the doctor said they HAD to do an MRI. Even an x-ray wasn't good enough, it had to be an MRI. I was too in pain then drugged to think about asking who said an MRI was required. I certainly didn't ask for it and the ER staff didn't think it necessary for the diagnosis but someone somewhere said it HAD to be done.

If idiotic requirements like this can be eliminated, costs for all would go down. So how do we eliminate this redundancy from the bureaucracy? That is a big debate and needs serious investigation instead of gamesmanship, lobbyist intervention, and political rhetoric. I'll just keep dreaming of the day...

This is what you non-medical Aggies don't understand.
If the doctor had simply made the diagnosis "from the hip" like the nurse did, and didn't use a confirming test with the best technologies available, the patient's lawyers would be all over him, the hospital, and the nurse!
This is driven by the insurance company lawyers; who are pushed to it by the malpractice lawyers.
If you a wide open wild west of lawyers, this is what you get!
Duh!

Try looking the sypmtoms of a kidney stone attack.
Then type in those symptoms and see how many disease processes have common symptoms.

Even in dentistry, I can made a quick guess from symptoms and will be correct 80% of the time.
When we are expected to get it right 99.9% of the time, you do all the confirmatory tests you can to rule out signs and symptoms common to other conditions.

Soonerfan88
12/13/2011, 08:52 PM
Cruiser, take a deep breath and read again. I was the patient and had a good idea myself what was wrong. The doctor did examine me and ask questions to confirm the initial diagnosis. And I certainly wasn't going to sue anyone. Also, I said he couldn't even do a cheaper x-ray - it had to be the MRI.

So as a dentist, can you calmly and rationally tell us why you run every test you can think of? Is it because your insurance company makes you or because you fear a lawsuit? Have you ever been sued before? If so, what was your experience of the workings of the court?

Whet
12/13/2011, 09:23 PM
Without tort reform, you can not solve this problem. No doctor or hospital will make a diagnosis without the investigative tools. Hell, if Froze ever graduates, he would sue the doctor, sue the hospital, sue the parking attendant, and sue anyone else that could provide money.

soonercruiser
12/13/2011, 09:38 PM
Cruiser, take a deep breath and read again. I was the patient and had a good idea myself what was wrong. The doctor did examine me and ask questions to confirm the initial diagnosis. And I certainly wasn't going to sue anyone. Also, I said he couldn't even do a cheaper x-ray - it had to be the MRI.

So as a dentist, can you calmly and rationally tell us why you run every test you can think of? Is it because your insurance company makes you or because you fear a lawsuit? Have you ever been sued before? If so, what was your experience of the workings of the court?

88,
I know that YOU were the patient.
I was trying to make the example "generic".

I cannot think like your doctor, or for your doctor.
I am making an analogy. For instance.....if I see a whole in your tooth, I can only get that filling "authorized" by the insurance company if I send an x-ray of that lesion.
The rules that medical providers work with are very similar.

And, if you did come in with a difficult diagnostic condition, I would leave no stone unturned in order to clarify the true, and only cause!
Luckily, I have never been sued for dental therapy. For years, I was the only TMJ expert in the building at the College, and was called on several times to provide expert testimony, and written opinions for lawyers involved in TMJ cases.
A complete and thorough evaluation, and correct diagnosis, including many confirmatory and excluding tests was the standard of care in court!
I believe that my analagies for medicine are valid.

hawaii 5-0
12/13/2011, 11:33 PM
I agree with the above posters. IMO Doctors and horspitals are afraid of being sued so they have to order all the expensive tests to cover their azzes.

Tort reform is needed to keep costs down.

5-0

Midtowner
12/14/2011, 12:15 AM
Without tort reform, you can not solve this problem. No doctor or hospital will make a diagnosis without the investigative tools. Hell, if Froze ever graduates, he would sue the doctor, sue the hospital, sue the parking attendant, and sue anyone else that could provide money.

So you'd rather the doc shoot from the hip on your life or death diagnosis? Cool beans.

The whole requiring tests 'n stuff has a basis and it's not frivolous. If you don't do it, a certain number of people are going to die deaths which are easily preventable. Tort reform is taking the most vulnerable population (sick and injured folks) and taking from them to give to insurance companies. Do we not think that docs make a mint off of all of these "unnecessary" procedures? If it was your life on the line, would you want the MRI, or would you rather just go with whatever the nurse's shoot-from-the-hip diagnosis was?

hawaii 5-0
12/14/2011, 01:34 AM
A certain number of people are gonna die regardless of the diagnosis. People die of complications all the time. Not everytime mind you, but it happens a lot. Nobody's perfect. Sometimes people die regardless of how good their doctor is or what the diagnosis is.

5-0

Serge Ibaka
12/14/2011, 03:51 AM
What does the UK have to do with anything? Just because it fails elsewhere, Universal Coverage is still the best (most ethical) system for Americans. We gotta use our brains and make it work.

So again: so what? Isn't the U.S. supposed to, like, be good at things?

Midtowner
12/14/2011, 07:43 AM
A certain number of people are gonna die regardless of the diagnosis. People die of complications all the time. Not everytime mind you, but it happens a lot. Nobody's perfect. Sometimes people die regardless of how good their doctor is or what the diagnosis is.

5-0

The central message to not wanting to have docs run all of the tests they do is that you no longer want them to be careful. Their own insurance companies and professions have determined that those procedures are what they need to do in order to make sure their diagnoses are correct. Some are saying that it's a bad thing?

East Coast Bias
12/14/2011, 09:06 AM
A lot of good points here. I can speak from experience as well based on my tour of the healthcare system. I have had 3 heart attacks along with a host of procedures including installation of a 66K pacemaker which even the doctor's admit was probably not needed. Many of the expensive tests are ground out daily by the thousands in Doctor's offices and some of this could be limited for sure. For me our current system is corporate excess driven by profit and only benefits the providers and those that can afford the system. I know government largess is on the other side of the argument, but seriously we could work out a better system. Why can't we have a national debate on this and work for a better system? Where is the Republican plan if they don't like Obamacare? For me I would lean toward measured socialism and some thoughtful regulation. Whats a better solution? And are the rest of you really satisfied with the current system?

KantoSooner
12/14/2011, 09:32 AM
Thank you posters for the valuable insight. So far we've got fear of law suits resulting in overkill.

Anyone have any idea how to put a dollar value on this? Let's say we were able to enact tort reform so that doctors or hospitals had to pay for whatever reparative surgery/care you ended up needing as a result of their screwup...and a statutory maximum pain/suffering/general hassle amount (about, say $300,000 max) (call this the 'Japanese model' because that's what they do there). And let's say we were able to get doctors into a mode of using their judgement rather than throwing the kitchen sink at every sniffle that walks in the door. Again, I'm focusing on costs here, not specific mechanisms to run the system.
How much would we save?

I'm guessing this is some of the problem....but not all. I'm not even sure it's the biggest part of the problem.

Any estimates? I know that court awarded judgements really turn out to be pretty small potatoes. (yes, they drive insurance and defensive medicine, which are harder to estimate.)

And, relatedly, why do tests cost so damn much? I have had X-rays, MRI's, and some damn goofy thing in Japan where they shot me up with radioactive juice and then put me on a rotating table with my blood vessels visible on a screen to see if MY kidney stones were causing internal bleeding. What they hell, it was a Toshiba machine, I figured their engineers weren't entirely asleep at the switch. And guess what? Our tests, in this country, run between 5 and 20 times the cost. I got perfectly good xrays in Malaysia for $5.
A lot of the problem with healthcare is cost driven and we're paying way too much.

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 09:42 AM
Personally I don't think tort reform will amount to much though there would be something...could be wrong...

I don't think doctors pay is too high...especially the GP...some of those specialist do make a fortune....but I don't see how you can curb their pay since it takes them a decade to get their doctorate...

I am sure tests cost so much is due to....tons of paperwork to get the pay....every podunk hospital has all of the new fangeled gadgets in house...

Low or no deductible and co pays make it too easy to go see the doc...

No one wants to price shop when they are getting surgery....you might go cheap on fixing your car but you damn sure don't want to go cheap on healthcare...


We should eliminate prescription drug advertising..I think there are only two countries that allow advertising...us and I think NZ...

KantoSooner
12/14/2011, 10:08 AM
At the risk of broadening the topic again, before any numbers have been placed on the whole 'defensive medicine' complex of non-productive costs, how about outright fraud? I seem to recall a 60 minutes last year that outlined $60 billion in fraud costs generated in South Florida alone.
Now, compared with a national health tab of somewhere just south of $3 trillion, that's not huge, but it's getting into real dollars from my point of view.
Anyone have real numbers on fraud?

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 10:22 AM
This says 200 billion a year...

http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/how-much-fraud.php

This is from some chicks thesis...she says something like 25%..she digs into a bunch of chit

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/honors_vol.2_no.4.pdf

NormanPride
12/14/2011, 10:36 AM
Yes we need the feds to step in and save us all from ourselves. So who's going to pay for all of this "FREE" chit again?

I am consistently amazed at your ability to be the worst poster on this board.

hawaii 5-0
12/14/2011, 10:38 AM
'Defensive Medicine'


That's a good term for what's going on.


Someone told me years ago that in China it pays its Doctors for keeping patients healthy. If and when they get sick they don't get paid. If true it's interesting.

5-0

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 10:51 AM
Believe it or not defensive medicine will end up costing more...

If you don't die from the heart attack you will live longer and end up costing more in the long run...

There are multiple studies that show the stats....

SouthCarolinaSooner
12/14/2011, 10:53 AM
Yes we need the feds to step in and save us all from ourselves. So who's going to pay for all of this "FREE" chit again?
Same people who pay for this free, socialized military

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 10:55 AM
Here is one from some scrub publication...The New England Journal of Medicine...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4

The focus on prevention as a key source of cost savings in health care also sidesteps the question of whether such measures are generally more promising and efficient than the treatment of existing conditions. Researchers have found that although high-technology treatments for existing conditions can be expensive, such measures may, in certain circumstances, also represent an efficient use of resources.5 It is important to analyze the costs and benefits of specific interventions.

KantoSooner
12/14/2011, 11:08 AM
This says 200 billion a year...

http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/how-much-fraud.php

This is from some chicks thesis...she says something like 25%..she digs into a bunch of chit

http://www.indiana.edu/~spea/pubs/undergrad-honors/honors_vol.2_no.4.pdf

You, sir, are quite literally a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for these references and I'll be back after I've read them.

East Coast Bias
12/14/2011, 03:15 PM
It seems we all agree the biggest problem with our system is the cost.I would like to offer some liberal solutions to the problem for your consideration. Spreading the cost fairly to all users of the system( another redistribution plot?).This would make all components of the system cheaper as more people would be contributing. Its a no-brainer that seniors are dragging the system down, we need more contribution from the younger members of society. I can't really soften up my next suggestion for conservatives, but here goes: We may have to regulate pricing on some of the items that are driving costs through the roof. Example: Why not regulate what can be charged for an MRI to levels that only allow exorbitant profits rather than obscene profits? Is there a really good reason why we pay 3K for something done in other countries for 2/3 less? I think we could also put some limits on what drugs cost in this country. Its clear the drug companies are not happen with anykind of reasonable profit margin when there products are sold appreciably cheaper overseas.Or maybe we should just keep things the way they are?

OULenexaman
12/14/2011, 03:36 PM
http://www.goall.com/article/business-will-be-choking-on-obamacare.html

Dale Ellis
12/14/2011, 03:42 PM
It seems we all agree the biggest problem with our system is the cost.I would like to offer some liberal solutions to the problem for your consideration. Spreading the cost fairly to all users of the system( another redistribution plot?).This would make all components of the system cheaper as more people would be contributing. Its a no-brainer that seniors are dragging the system down, we need more contribution from the younger members of society. I can't really soften up my next suggestion for conservatives, but here goes: We may have to regulate pricing on some of the items that are driving costs through the roof. Example: Why not regulate what can be charged for an MRI to levels that only allow exorbitant profits rather than obscene profits? Is there a really good reason why we pay 3K for something done in other countries for 2/3 less? I think we could also put some limits on what drugs cost in this country. Its clear the drug companies are not happen with anykind of reasonable profit margin when there products are sold appreciably cheaper overseas.Or maybe we should just keep things the way they are?

Yes, we need more government intervention and regulations. After all, we all know anything the federal government gets involved in, runs much better than it would without their involvement.

Why do you think SS, medicare, medicaid and the USPS are such efficient, well oiled machines. NEXT!!!!!!!!!

Dale Ellis
12/14/2011, 03:45 PM
http://www.goall.com/article/business-will-be-choking-on-obamacare.html

Great read, but the libs on this board will just dismiss it and move on. Where are all the stories from all the business owners who are in support of Obama care?

Dale Ellis
12/14/2011, 03:46 PM
where the heck has midtowner been lately?

Dale Ellis
12/14/2011, 03:48 PM
The central message to not wanting to have docs run all of the tests they do is that you no longer want them to be careful. Their own insurance companies and professions have determined that those procedures are what they need to do in order to make sure their diagnoses are correct. Some are saying that it's a bad thing?

Mid, what kind of coverage do your two employees have? Do you provide it to them as a benefit?

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 04:11 PM
It seems we all agree the biggest problem with our system is the cost.I would like to offer some liberal solutions to the problem for your consideration. Spreading the cost fairly to all users of the system( another redistribution plot?).This would make all components of the system cheaper as more people would be contributing. Its a no-brainer that seniors are dragging the system down, we need more contribution from the younger members of society. I can't really soften up my next suggestion for conservatives, but here goes: We may have to regulate pricing on some of the items that are driving costs through the roof. Example: Why not regulate what can be charged for an MRI to levels that only allow exorbitant profits rather than obscene profits? Is there a really good reason why we pay 3K for something done in other countries for 2/3 less? I think we could also put some limits on what drugs cost in this country. Its clear the drug companies are not happen with anykind of reasonable profit margin when there products are sold appreciably cheaper overseas.Or maybe we should just keep things the way they are?

An MRI machine and the room will cost upwards of 2 million bucks....

East Coast Bias
12/14/2011, 06:04 PM
Yes, we need more government intervention and regulations. After all, we all know anything the federal government gets involved in, runs much better than it would without their involvement.

Why do you think SS, medicare, medicaid and the USPS are such efficient, well oiled machines. NEXT!!!!!!!!!

Fair enough we know where you stand on this. You think unbridled corporate management of the health care system by the Doctor's, insurance companies and drug companies is a model that is working well. Come up with some solutions for the problem or move along please...

East Coast Bias
12/14/2011, 06:14 PM
An MRI machine and the room will cost upwards of 2 million bucks....

Pretty good investment for most of the clinics I have seen. The math is pretty simple. How much does it cost to borrow 1m and how many people do you have to charge 3k in a month to make the payment? All the equipment and procedures associated with them are the profit generators from what I have seen. I believe the costs could be amortized and charges reduced and still provide a sizable return. They do this in many other parts of the world with the same equipment?

Soonerfan88
12/14/2011, 06:53 PM
I agree with the suggestion to ban prescription drug advertising. These are really ridiculous and annoy me when I have to skip 10 pages in a magazine just to continue reading the article.

And if you pay $2M for an MRI machine & setup and charge $2500 per MRI, it will only take 800 patients to pay it off. Okay, add a few more in for the interest payments on the loan but it would still be easy to start earning a full profit in less than 2 years for most hospitals or clinics. That is excessive to me.

Going in another direction, what irritates me are those that want everything for nothing. They expect very low monthly insurance premiums but also think every dime of every visit for every sniffle should be covered by the insurance company. Americans have to be willing to pay a percentage of the cost of care. The trick appears to be getting the cost of care to a reasonable level.

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 07:00 PM
There is more than that 2 million....space...technicians....safety audits and documentation...(you can bet your azz there is a mountain of required documentation)...there are private imaging clinics in operation that have significantly lower costs than the hospitals...

I am not trying to justify the cost but the reason our costs are high is the expensive technology that is evolving...

Low deductibles and co pays are the debil...

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 07:27 PM
If you were to invest 3 million into a business what type return would you require?

ictsooner7
12/14/2011, 07:52 PM
Who Can You Turn To When Insurance Coverage Is Denied And There Is No Where To Turn? The Impact Of ERISA Plans
by Dr. LenFebruary 25, 2011

Sometimes we have moments which may help us focus our thinking on an issue, or perhaps clarify our understanding of a problem. We can ponder large problems, but it is those experiences on a more "micro" basis that brings clarity to our thoughts.

A discussion I had this past week with a couple facing an insurance denial for cancer-related surgery was just such an experience.

I can't go into all the details, but the bottom line for me is that if we don't find some way to bring clarity and rationality to our health care non-system soon, many people are going to find themselves wondering what happened when they needed help the most.

The events as recounted to me were pretty straightforward: a young lady had a strong history of ovarian cancer on both her mother's and father's sides of her family. She had seen two reputable genetic counselors, both of whom told her she had a very high risk of developing ovarian cancer at some time in her life-with a significant probability that such a diagnosis would be at a late stage of disease and likely fatal.

There are two appropriate recommendations for a woman in this circumstance: regular surveillance with blood tests and ultrasounds in the hope of finding an ovarian cancer early, or to have her ovaries removed after she had completed her family. (There is also the option of taking risk-reducing medications, but generally most physicians are going to recommend one of the two prior courses of action.)

The problem is that neither of the preventive approaches are guaranteed to absolutely prevent ovarian cancer or catch it early when it is curable, but they are the best we have. Unfortunately, the "active surveillance" approach has not been shown to have a "maximal" opportunity of reducing the chance of death from ovarian cancer, while the surgical approach offers the best opportunity to avoid a cancer but doesn't guarantee that some form of ovarian cancer may arise elsewhere in the abdominal tissues. And, with surgery, there is the guarantee of an early menopause once the ovaries are removed.

So far so good-until it came time for the surgery.

As I understand the situation, this lady works for a large company that "self-insures" under what is called an ERISA plan.

Companies that insure their employees under ERISA all have different rules and regulations as to what they will and won't cover. Some use large insurers to manage their plans and the decision making process, while others are truly self-insured and rely on their own judgment to determine what medical services are covered.

However-and this is the key to this discussion-there is effectively no regulatory control over these plans. They function across state lines, and have no oversight by state insurance commissioners, unlike insurance plans licensed in a particular state. They can decided on their own what they will cover and what they won't, and there are few standards they are required to use when it comes to medical necessity decisions. Some may have effective and appropriate appeal mechanisms, while others may not.

So now back to the young lady, whose doctors had recommended she have her ovaries removed to prevent ovarian cancer.

You can probably guess why I am telling you this saga: the company denied the procedure, saying it was "preventive" and therefore not a medical condition requiring medical treatment. They don't cover "preventive" services.

I frankly was appalled when I heard this story. I couldn't-and still can't-understand how someone could make this decision. To me, it was like telling someone they had severe heart disease and could die from a heart attack but not covering treatment to avoid that heart attack. Come back after your heart attack, and if it didn't kill you, then maybe we will treat your end-stage congestive heart failure and rhythm problems which were caused by the "disease" we could have prevented in the first place.

I also couldn't understand how this case could have gone through a medical review by a competent physician who understood the medical issues and not been approved.

Then I realized how vulnerable people can be when there is no effective, independent appeal mechanism available to act as a neutral judge in situations like this. Those regulations are in place for many licensed insurance plans in many states, but not required under ERISA. Under ERISA, if you don't like the decision, you are welcome to go sue the company in federal court. Good luck, if you haven't already died waiting.

We are undergoing changes in health insurance and health care in this country. Some of the changes are long overdue. I have made no secret of the fact that I believe we have a very irrational health care system, where resources are used in situations where those resources do not effectively contribute to health or the curing of disease but are instead driven solely by economic incentives. In a nutshell, we need rational care, not rationing of care.

Then there are those who are vulnerable in the system, those who don't understand how this system works and go about their daily work until one day they find out that what they thought was there to protect them in their time of need wasn't there at all.

My lady had her surgery, and is appealing her denial of insurance coverage. In the meantime, how many people are caught in the same ERISA trap and have no where to turn when they need help?

Unfortunately-although I suspect many self-insured companies try to do right by their employees--my hunch is that she is not alone.

And then people ask why we need to reform the system. Maybe the reason we don't hear a loud response is that really sick patients and dead people who didn't get the preventive services and medical care they needed when they needed it don't talk.

Hows that highest cost US Healthcare in the world doing?

ictsooner7
12/14/2011, 07:57 PM
That free health care for great for a well known hypocrite and FREE LOADER SARAH PALIN who went to Canada to get her FREE HEALTH CARE! It's fine for her but we can't have it? She didn't even pay taxes in Canada! Where I come from taking services and not paying for them is called stealing!

REDREX
12/14/2011, 08:11 PM
That free health care for great for a well known hypocrite and FREE LOADER SARAH PALIN who went to Canada to get her FREE HEALTH CARE! It's fine for her but we can't have it? She didn't even pay taxes in Canada! Where I come from taking services and not paying for them is called stealing!---So i guess that if you don't pay taxes in the US you should not take services from the US Gov't----Sounds good to me

East Coast Bias
12/14/2011, 08:29 PM
If you were to invest 3 million into a business what type return would you require?

You sure you're not in the health care industry,Phil? This started out at 1 million, now you have it jacked up to 3 million? Truthfully I don't know, I would suspect something north of 10%. An MRI cost $98 in Japan using the same equipment, maybe you could explain that? And yes their healthcare is 8% of GDP where ours is 16%. I have not been able to find any bargains in our healthcare system.

East Coast Bias
12/14/2011, 08:40 PM
Usually at about this point in the thread Phil shows up to remind us all that poor people in the US already have free healthcare.....

pphilfran
12/14/2011, 08:43 PM
You sure you're not in the health care industry,Phil? This started out at 1 million, now you have it jacked up to 3 million? Truthfully I don't know, I would suspect something north of 10%. An MRI cost $98 in Japan using the same equipment, maybe you could explain that? And yes their healthcare is 8% of GDP where ours is 16%. I have not been able to find any bargains in our healthcare system.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4731161_much-do-mri-machines-cost.html

MRI equipment varies in cost, depending on the strength of the scanner. Scanners with more strength produce more detailed images; therefore, these scanners cost more. MRI machines can range in cost between $1 and $3 million. Construction of MRI suites can easily add another $500,000 to the total cost. An extremity MRI machine alone costs $300,000 or more, and can only be used to scan hands, feet and knees. Purchasing a used-extremity MRI scanner can cost as much as $150,000.

soonercruiser
12/14/2011, 09:08 PM
An MRI machine and the room will cost upwards of 2 million bucks....

An MRI, CT Scan, etc. are worlds apart from a B&W 2 dimensional x-ray.
It takes special training and certification to be a technician who does these.
Not all doctors can even read, let alone "interpret" an MRI or CT scan.
You must be a specially trained and certified radiologist to interpret these special studies.

3D tecnology is fast becoming even the standard of care for placing dental implants.

soonercruiser
12/14/2011, 09:10 PM
I agree with the above posters. IMO Doctors and horspitals are afraid of being sued so they have to order all the expensive tests to cover their azzes.

Tort reform is needed to keep costs down.

5-0

But, even I admit that tort reform is only one important piece of the whole healthcare puzzle.

soonercruiser
12/14/2011, 09:14 PM
What does the UK have to do with anything? Just because it fails elsewhere, Universal Coverage is still the best (most ethical) system for Americans. We gotta use our brains and make it work.

So again: so what? Isn't the U.S. supposed to, like, be good at things?

Maybe I'm missing something.
How can one just say that "universal coverage" is the best or even most ethical system for Americans.

America = Constitution!
Show me where that is explained in the constitution?
I can see at least one or two clauses in the Constitution that say forcing everyone to buy a private business product is wrong for America!

soonercruiser
12/14/2011, 09:20 PM
Thank you posters for the valuable insight. So far we've got fear of law suits resulting in overkill.

Anyone have any idea how to put a dollar value on this? Let's say we were able to enact tort reform so that doctors or hospitals had to pay for whatever reparative surgery/care you ended up needing as a result of their screwup...and a statutory maximum pain/suffering/general hassle amount (about, say $300,000 max) (call this the 'Japanese model' because that's what they do there). And let's say we were able to get doctors into a mode of using their judgement rather than throwing the kitchen sink at every sniffle that walks in the door. Again, I'm focusing on costs here, not specific mechanisms to run the system.
How much would we save?

I'm guessing this is some of the problem....but not all. I'm not even sure it's the biggest part of the problem.

Any estimates? I know that court awarded judgements really turn out to be pretty small potatoes. (yes, they drive insurance and defensive medicine, which are harder to estimate.)

And, relatedly, why do tests cost so damn much? I have had X-rays, MRI's, and some damn goofy thing in Japan where they shot me up with radioactive juice and then put me on a rotating table with my blood vessels visible on a screen to see if MY kidney stones were causing internal bleeding. What they hell, it was a Toshiba machine, I figured their engineers weren't entirely asleep at the switch. And guess what? Our tests, in this country, run between 5 and 20 times the cost. I got perfectly good xrays in Malaysia for $5.
A lot of the problem with healthcare is cost driven and we're paying way too much.


Kanto,
I am glad that you Malaysia experince panned out.
But, I would venture a guess that about 80% of the American poulation wouldn't go overseas for care (trust them); or, couldn't afford to go overseas for care.
(Canada maybe; Mexico, not so much!)

cleller
12/15/2011, 09:54 AM
I think that most Americans are naive enough to think that national health care is something that they won't have to pay for in some way. They will, of course, in taxes. Here is a look at the "tax wedge" of various countries. Tax wedge is basically the difference between gross and net to the worker. The tax burdens in Europe mostly very high:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor-total-tax-wedge-single-worker

Then there is the issue of how well it will work. The system in the UK has enough problems that private insurance is flourishing over there.

http://www.simplyfinance.co.uk/articles/private-medical-uk.html

or people will pay out of pocket: (colonoscopy- 1000 pounds)
http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/hospitaltreatment/whatdoesitcost/

Then stop and consider the workers you usually encounter in large federal projects. Social Security office? IRS Office? How'd you like your medical system run the same way?

Finally, look what is going on in Europe, where this all started. They are in deep, deep trouble, and may be unable to sustain these programs as they are today.

OULenexaman
12/15/2011, 10:07 AM
Isn't Canada's system on the ropes as well?

badger
12/15/2011, 10:10 AM
I think that most Americans are naive enough to think that national health care is something that they won't have to pay for in some way. They will, of course, in taxes.

I think a lot of people think that about a lot of different things. It's why people use credit cards, but don't pay the balance at the end of the month. It's why people buy cars on two-year payment plans, or houses on 15-30 year plans, or college on crazy-high loans. If you don't pay for it immediately, perhaps there's a chance you won't have to pay for all of it for some reason, or maybe just the fact that you're getting it now and expected to pay later makes you feel like you're not paying for it at all?

Perhaps if healthcare was setup in a way that people paid for it like cars, houses, college or credit cards, people wouldn't be so adverse to having insurance or Obamacare. Perhaps just calling it something different from "insurance" or "Obamacare" would ease people's queasiness about possibly paying for something they might not use (or at least aren't using when they're paying for it).

Dale Ellis
12/15/2011, 10:19 AM
I would rather pay a much higher premium and purchase my own coverage rather than allow the guvment to run the show. We all know what the left's end goal is, a single payer, guvment run system. I should be allowed to have the option to purchase my own plan and pay whatever the hell I want to for it, no matter how much it is. But we can't do that, because that would mean less government control, and the left simply wont allow that. I hate left wing liberals who think they no better what to do with my money than I do.

hawaii 5-0
12/15/2011, 10:42 AM
Anytime someone says, "We all know" or "We all agree" we all can't help but laugh.


5-0

KantoSooner
12/15/2011, 10:42 AM
Kanto,
I am glad that you Malaysia experince panned out.
But, I would venture a guess that about 80% of the American poulation wouldn't go overseas for care (trust them); or, couldn't afford to go overseas for care.
(Canada maybe; Mexico, not so much!)

I was there for work. I didn't go there seeking cheap x-rays. And I don't suggest we borrow their 'system' wholesale (although I did enjoy being able to 'suggest' medications to the pharmacy and being treated like a doctor because am educated). I was only trying to point out that there's something weird going on when pricing for common services is so vastly disparate.

KantoSooner
12/15/2011, 10:54 AM
You sure you're not in the health care industry,Phil? This started out at 1 million, now you have it jacked up to 3 million? Truthfully I don't know, I would suspect something north of 10%. An MRI cost $98 in Japan using the same equipment, maybe you could explain that? And yes their healthcare is 8% of GDP where ours is 16%. I have not been able to find any bargains in our healthcare system.

One major key to Japan's system is that patients aren't as demanding there. If the doctor's judgement is that you need 'X' treatment, you go get that and live with the results. Suits against doctors there are exceedingly rare and typically only in cases of really extreme abuse. (Doctor operating drunk or the like).
Partly, the system self regulates. There is less privacy, so there are always more eyes watching what's going on. Crap doctors tend to get called out by their peers. And, although it's a single payer system, you have a choice who you go to. Some doctor's waiting rooms are full, some are empty. Sometimes it makes sense to wait a bit vs getting served right now.
I lived under that system for almost 20 years over the course of 4 stints in Japan; largely without complaint. Mind you, they simply don't do most transplants there (Buddhism frowns on cremation of less than a complete body.) and that would have seriously disappointed me if I'd needed an extra kidney or what not.
Many places that have national health also have private sector medicine and insurance that allows those who want and have the means to have more control over what treatment they receive. (Australia, Japan and Singapore all follow this model)(and all three are places I'd have no qualms about receiving major surgery, cancer treatment, trauma care, etc., they're not crappy medical systems).

SoonerLaw09
12/15/2011, 12:11 PM
The folks that are saying the culture in the country is the main driving force behind high costs are essentially right. We here in the good ol' USA somehow think we are entitled to live a long and happy life free of any medical complications or accidental death. If we die before age 90 it's got to be *somebody's* fault...call a lawyer! People in Europe have more of a "**it happens" outlook. They don't demand extraordinary medical treatment nor do they expect to never get sick. The reason why the UK NHS has survived up until this point is partly because of that outlook, driven by all the centuries of constant warfare, it's now kind of like a race memory for them. We've never experienced that kind of thing here (except for the Civil War and that didn't last long).

How you fix health care costs is this: 1) tort reform, limit malpractice suits and damage awards to only the most egregious cases; 2) get rid of the idea of "health insurance" altogether and go back to a cash-for-service system like other professions use; thereby, removing the incentive for doctors and patients to request unnecessary treatment; 3) reform the Medicare/Medicaid systems to eliminate waste and fraud; truth be known, both of those entitlement programs should really be abolished and the burden assumed by the private sector, as it was prior to 1965. However, given the current amount of waste and fraud, if we're going to keep these programs in some form, it would probably be cheaper to just have government-run hospitals and clinics for the poor, alongside the private sector for those who wish to have that option (like Japan and Australia).

NormanPride
12/15/2011, 12:18 PM
I'm gonna sue the **** out of people after I die.

ictsooner7
12/15/2011, 12:32 PM
The folks that are saying the culture in the country is the main driving force behind high costs are essentially right. We here in the good ol' USA somehow think we are entitled to live a long and happy life free of any medical complications or accidental death. If we die before age 90 it's got to be *somebody's* fault...call a lawyer! People in Europe have more of a "**it happens" outlook. They don't demand extraordinary medical treatment nor do they expect to never get sick. The reason why the UK NHS has survived up until this point is partly because of that outlook, driven by all the centuries of constant warfare, it's now kind of like a race memory for them. We've never experienced that kind of thing here (except for the Civil War and that didn't last long).

How you fix health care costs is this: 1) tort reform, limit malpractice suits and damage awards to only the most egregious cases; 2) get rid of the idea of "health insurance" altogether and go back to a cash-for-service system like other professions use; thereby, removing the incentive for doctors and patients to request unnecessary treatment; 3) reform the Medicare/Medicaid systems to eliminate waste and fraud; truth be known, both of those entitlement programs should really be abolished and the burden assumed by the private sector, as it was prior to 1965. However, given the current amount of waste and fraud, if we're going to keep these programs in some form, it would probably be cheaper to just have government-run hospitals and clinics for the poor, alongside the private sector for those who wish to have that option (like Japan and Australia).


Texas has tort reform and it did lower costs a dime. What do you think happens when someone is there is a medical mistake the person is incapacitated for life and there is tort reform? Caps on payments to the victims for medical services cause the victim to run out in a matter of years so what happens then? They get on Medicaid! YOU END UP PAYING FOR IT! Tort reform is for insurance companies and adds maybe 1% to the cost of health care. More of the cost of our health care is obscene profits from drug companies which, BY LAW put in by republicans; the government cannot behave like a business and combine demand to negotiate for drug prices. It doctors getting out of medical school and expecting to make half a million dollars a year with no experience, why do you think they fight increasing the number of doctors as our population ages and the demand for doctor skyrocketing.

ictsooner7
12/15/2011, 12:36 PM
I would rather pay a much higher premium and purchase my own coverage rather than allow the guvment to run the show. We all know what the left's end goal is, a single payer, guvment run system. I should be allowed to have the option to purchase my own plan and pay whatever the hell I want to for it, no matter how much it is. But we can't do that, because that would mean less government control, and the left simply wont allow that. I hate left wing liberals who think they no better what to do with my money than I do.

So.............let me get this straight. Just to keep "liberals from telling you what to do with your money" you are willing to pay more for health care? How incredibly ignorant. No wonder our country is so screwed up, you drank the republican coolaid you chugged it!

soonercruiser
12/15/2011, 12:47 PM
I was there for work. I didn't go there seeking cheap x-rays. And I don't suggest we borrow their 'system' wholesale (although I did enjoy being able to 'suggest' medications to the pharmacy and being treated like a doctor because am educated). I was only trying to point out that there's something weird going on when pricing for common services is so vastly disparate.

Kanto,
Did you by any chance consider the standard of living, or cost of living in Malaysia having something to do with it????
I could look up the average pay for an x-ray tech in the USA vs. Malaysia. Union vs. non-union?
But, I won't waste my time researching the obvious.

soonercruiser
12/15/2011, 12:52 PM
So.............let me get this straight. Just to keep "liberals from telling you what to do with your money" you are willing to pay more for health care? How incredibly ignorant. No wonder our country is so screwed up, you drank the republican coolaid you chugged it!

Per chance that Ellis' point was made too simply.
I would pay less if I paid for my insurance from a company who does no insure smokers, people with unhealthy life styles, abortions of the pill, face lifts and cosmetic surgery, elective surgeries like sex-change operations, etc.?????
This is what free and open, across-state-lines competition could do!

soonerloyal
12/15/2011, 12:58 PM
"How('s) That Free Healthcare in the UK Doing???"

Still a ****load better than ours, especially when you consider their IMR is much lower, among many other things.

In what woozy world is a healthy citizenry such a bad thing?



This is what free and open, across-state-lines competition could do!

Think of what a not-for-profit healthcare system that focuses on actual care of health rather than gross profits for know-nothing-about-medicine middlemen could do instead.

KantoSooner
12/15/2011, 01:49 PM
Kanto,
Did you by any chance consider the standard of living, or cost of living in Malaysia having something to do with it????
I could look up the average pay for an x-ray tech in the USA vs. Malaysia. Union vs. non-union?
But, I won't waste my time researching the obvious.

Hey now, we're trying to keep this gentile. For the record, the clinic was new, the doctor drove a Merc SUV and his nurses were Chinese (ethnically) and college educated. Malaysia is a bit better off than Mexico, which puts them firmly 'global middle class'.
Main diversions on the weekend for Malaysians? Going to theme parks/water parks (it's summer all year long), shopping in malls, taking the family out to eat, having barbecues for family and friends at home.
Typical salaries are far lower than in the US, but this is no exploitation society.
So, the comparison stands and it bears investigation as to how a comparable medical procedure costs so much less there.....and in every other country on earth.
Is it all low wages and union busting? Maybe, but I think the story is a bit more complex than that.

KantoSooner
12/15/2011, 01:50 PM
"genteel", I meant genteel.

Although it does inject a certain humor to read it gentile....

Dale Ellis
12/15/2011, 02:13 PM
So.............let me get this straight. Just to keep "liberals from telling you what to do with your money" you are willing to pay more for health care? How incredibly ignorant. No wonder our country is so screwed up, you drank the republican coolaid you chugged it!


No, to keep ANYONE ( but so far only the libs are )from telling me what I should do with my money, I would. Who the hell are YOU to tell me how I should spend my money. The arrogance of those on the left is simply astounding.

soonercruiser
12/15/2011, 03:08 PM
Texas has tort reform and it did lower costs a dime. What do you think happens when someone is there is a medical mistake the person is incapacitated for life and there is tort reform? Caps on payments to the victims for medical services cause the victim to run out in a matter of years so what happens then? They get on Medicaid! YOU END UP PAYING FOR IT! Tort reform is for insurance companies and adds maybe 1% to the cost of health care. More of the cost of our health care is obscene profits from drug companies which, BY LAW put in by republicans; the government cannot behave like a business and combine demand to negotiate for drug prices. It doctors getting out of medical school and expecting to make half a million dollars a year with no experience, why do you think they fight increasing the number of doctors as our population ages and the demand for doctor skyrocketing.

Well, ict, you are entitled to your own opinion....
**But, you are NOT entitled to your own facts about tort reform results in Texas.
Although healthcare costs are still rising, they aren't going up the 900% in 3 years like they did in the early 2000s!
And, healthcare costs must go up when the fed government mandates that you cover millions more people!

Besides, who wants just cheaper insurance premiums, when there are no doctors accepting you as a patient??? The tort reform picture is bigger than just costs increases, which are enivitable.
Like every other commodity in the USA, increased prices an inflation are a fact of life.

I thought that the LW mantra, especially in Congress, is to slow, and take credit for lowering the increases in cost??? The LW can't have it both ways!



Better Care in Texas Thanks to Tort Reform
20 Responses
By HOWARD MARCUS, MD
Thanks to the passage of lawsuit reforms, medical care is now more readily available in many Texas communities. For many patients, this change has been life-altering; for some, life-saving.
George Rodriguez walks today thanks to tort reform. Newly established Corpus Christi neurosurgeon Matthew Alexander urgently operated on Rodriguez’ spinal abscess, relieving the pressure on his spinal cord, and sparing him life in a wheel chair. Without the state’s lawsuit reforms, Dr. Alexander wouldn’t have relocated to Texas and Mr. Rodriguez would have been deprived access to emergency neurosurgery in Corpus Christi.
Cancer survivor Ruby Collins credits newly minted Brownwood urologist Daniel Alstatt with saving her life. Dr. Alstatt says he wouldn’t have moved there, were it not for tort reform.
Andrya Burciaga of McAllen, a complex patient with diabetes and hypertension, is a first-time mother, thanks in part to the expertise of obstetrician/fertility specialist Dr. Javier Cardenas. Again, if not for the passage of the reforms, Dr. Cardenas says he absolutely would not have returned to his hometown to practice medicine nor taken problem pregnancies such as Ms. Burciaga’s.
Because of reforms, more patients across Texas are getting the care they need, when they need it.
Eight years ago, Texas was in the throes of an epidemic of lawsuit abuse. High numbers of meritless lawsuits, combined with excessive awards, caused doctors’ medical liability rates to double within just four years. Non-profit nursing homes saw their rates jump 900% within that same time frame, while hospitals saw liability costs increase as much as 50% in one year. Roughly one in four doctors was sued every year while the vast majority of these suits and claims were closed without payment.
Good doctors, pushed to the financial brink, stopped taking emergency call out of fear it would make them vulnerable to a lawsuit. Thirteen physician liability carriers left the state. Some 9,000 physicians were non-renewed by their carrier, putting them in jeopardy of losing their hospital privileges. The number of newly licensed Texas physicians fell to its lowest level in a decade. In 2004, Texas experienced the greatest decline in direct patient care physicians per capita in twenty years.
In response to this crisis, our organization supported and the legislature passed sweeping medical lawsuit reforms in 2003. The lynchpin of the reforms was a cap on “pain and suffering” awards. This cap struck a balance; it assured those injured by a medical mishap that they would be reasonably compensated, while it allowed conscientious doctors to find affordable liability coverage so that they could continue to serve their patients.
Since then, liability rates have plummeted nearly 50%, and good doctors have flocked to Texas in record numbers. Nursing homes and hospitals are again fully operational.
Today, many counties that lacked an orthopedic surgeon , an emergency medicine physician or a cardiologist now have one. The number of obstetricians practicing in rural Texas has grown four times faster than the state’s rural population. For the first time in memory, the CHRISTUS Health System, with hospitals, long-term care facilities, and clinics in more than 60 Texas cities, has no openings for obstetricians.
Twenty-nine counties that saw a net loss of physicians pre-reform registered a net gain post-reform. Those “losers turned gainers” include Potter and Jefferson counties, which lost 26 and 15 doctors, respectively.
All of these new physicians translate into 6 million more doctor visits annually for Texans who are sick or injured.
Since 2007, Texas has consistently licensed 60% more new doctors each year than occurred in the years predating tort reform. According to the most current data from the Department of Health and Human Services (2003-2008), Texas ranks 10th nationally in percentage growth of patient care physicians per capita, up from 23rd just five years earlier.
This physician growth is driven by something other than population. Survey after survey confirms that doctors new to Texas cite our liability climate as important in their decision to practice here.
By any objective measurement, the accelerated growth of new doctors, in-state active doctors, high-risk specialists and doctors who provide direct patient care per capita all exceed pre-reform levels.
Nothing in the law prohibits lawyers from taking cases. Patients harmed due to medical negligence can still collect fair compensation. Only the non-economic damages are capped and that at $250,000 to $750,000, depending upon the variety of defendants in the suit. That means no cap on damages for lost wages or past, present and future medical costs.
Trial lawyers will argue that they can’t afford to take cases now that there is a “pain and suffering” cap of $250,000. And yet, claims data from the Texas Department of Insurance reveal that since 1993, on average 500 cases are settled each year against doctors for $250,000 or less.
More doctors delivering more care is good for patients.
Howard Marcus is an internist at Austin Regional Clinic. He is the chairman of Texas Alliance For Patient Access, a statewide coalition of doctors, hospitals, clinics, nursing homes and physician liability insurers. This post originally appeared on the TAPA website.
http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2011/10/26/better-care-in-texas-thanks-to-tort-reform/


This article looks at both sides of the issue.....


Texas tort reform advocates dispute critical report
A study says health care costs have risen since a damages cap and other measures were enacted. The state's physicians call the report misleading.
By ALICIA GALLEGOS, amednews staff. Posted Oct 31, 2011.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/31/prsc1031.htm

More....


Professional Liability Insurance Reform
In 2003 the Texas Legislature approved House Bill 4, the most comprehensive tort reform legislation that any state has ever passed. The centerpiece of that bill was a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages for all physicians in a case, the single most effective known cure for health care lawsuit abuse. Stay abreast of the latest developments in health care tort reform.

TMLT Cuts Premiums Again

For the ninth consecutive year since tort reform, the Texas Medical Liability Trust (TMLT) is cutting its liability insurance premiums. This time, the TMLT Board of Governors approved an average 6.9-percent cut in liability premiums and an 18.5-percent dividend for renewing policyholders. (Action, Sept. 1, 2011)

Good for Patients, Good for Doctors: 2003 Tort Reforms Still Paying Off

The medical liability reforms TMA pushed through eight years ago are still paying off. Texas has more physicians, thereby increasing patients' access to care; liability insurance premiums have been drastically cut; and there are fewer lawsuits. But TMA leaders say physicians protect the reforms. (Texas Medicine, Sept. 1, 2011)

Burgess Files Texas-Style Tort Reform Bill

U.S. Rep. Michael C. Burgess, MD (R-Texas), has again filed legislation to improve patient access to physicians by ending unnecessary lawsuits by trial lawyers, just like a similar law has done in Texas since 2003. (Action, March 15, 2011)

Protect Your Right to Choose

If you’re thinking about becoming employed in an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) or Non-Profit Health Organization (NPHO) aka 5.01(a), are you contracting away your right to choose your health care liability insurer? Texas Medical Liablity Trust urges you to consider these possibilities and ask these questions before you sign.
http://www.texmed.org/template.aspx?id=780


Avg annual employee premium in TX employer-sponsored plan (after employer contrib): $844
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/texas-health-insurance

cleller
12/15/2011, 03:27 PM
Ask a doctor what tort reform would do for them.

Doctors were basically forced into these big conglomerations because they could not afford to pay the insurance to stay in small groups. They are also too afraid of being sued to try to open their own offices, safer to sign on with Big Brother.

Basic math tells you when plaintiffs and their lawyers are walking away with millions, costs are going to rise, no hiding from that.

StoopTroup
12/15/2011, 03:49 PM
I'm always amused by the outcry from the folks who make their living from the healthcare industry. This thread is started by such a person.

Now if we somehow could get back to seeing the Medical Community really make their living from what the market was willing to pay for a Drs advice or help they wouldn't much care for that either. We as a Country have always been the leader in Medicine because of reseach and Development. What we have failed to do is keep costs down and give affordable preventive care to all Americans. We leave many folks without care and yes some do get care for free but others do not. You shouldn't be crippled if someone could do a repair on your knee and get you back to work. You shouldn't have rotten teeth when a filling that used to be $75.00 is now $298.00 because the Doc or dentist likes to go heli-skiing in France twice a year.

StoopTroup
12/15/2011, 04:09 PM
I had a friend who had back surgery a couple of years ago. The Doctors there have built their own facility to try and avoid the beauracracy they were having to deal with. It cost them millions and now they must try to attract other surgeons there to help with the costs of running the new place. I feel for them as they all work very hard and do try to help people. If you don't have insurance though, you won't get them to do surgery as they have buried themselves into paying for a place that has cost them more than they ever imagined. They all have had to put strict rules into their practice so that they all aren't down there 24/7. Again it's something they have done to themselves. This isn't Obamacare that's ruining them. It's their egos. They built this place that they later. Couldn't afford. They got screwed by Contractors, landscapers you name it. We are the folks that pay for these really bad decisions. I've sat there watching them pull up to the place and leave their Mercedes running because they just stopped in to release a patient because they are gonna leave town and they need to release the patient because the Insurance Company won't pay for the patient to stay over the weekend even though it might have been best that they maybe take it a bit slower with said patient. They then get caught up in whatever is going on inside the Hospital and come out later to need to have someone take them to get gas for their car as they forgot they left it running.

I've seen some pretty sad wastes of resources. I've seen Nurses who work their asses off while others sit in a chair all weekend trying to get a 40 Hour work week in so they only have to work 3 to 3 1/2 days a week. They are worthless and yet these same Doctors were running from Beauracracy. I'd say it's funny but it's not. It's sad.

The Doctors anymore either have to put themselves in a position of power and expense or be a pawn in this huge game of healthcare. I'd love to think we could go back to seeing it he way folks think it should be but it's to far gone. We need Government to get involved.

East Coast Bias
12/15/2011, 07:48 PM
I would rather pay a much higher premium and purchase my own coverage rather than allow the guvment to run the show. We all know what the left's end goal is, a single payer, guvment run system. I should be allowed to have the option to purchase my own plan and pay whatever the hell I want to for it, no matter how much it is. But we can't do that, because that would mean less government control, and the left simply wont allow that. I hate left wing liberals who think they no better what to do with my money than I do.

This attitude is why we keep paying more and getting less. The left wants the very same thing the right wants;Better service for less money. This thread started out as a recitation about health-care failures in other countries and look how quickly our own horror stories came out. We are 23rd in the world in the quality of health-care, we should be looking around for a better system and having a meaningful national discourse on the subject. Regardless of all the tort-talk, truth is we have turned health care over to the corporate sector and they are butt-raping us and making people like Dale Ellis enjoy it. The government is not the boogy-man, and can do some things well with proper oversight and regulation.Now bend over Dale and tell the Doctor's, drug companies , providers and last but not least the insurance companies how much you like getting it up the ***...

ictsooner7
12/15/2011, 09:07 PM
No, to keep ANYONE ( but so far only the libs are )from telling me what I should do with my money, I would. Who the hell are YOU to tell me how I should spend my money. The arrogance of those on the left is simply astounding.

I am not telling you what to do with your money, you keep going there and no one has said they want to tell you what to do with your money. You are spending more money because of something that does not exist. Keep blowing your money to prove a point against something that does not exist. The right has suckered you into spending your money so you can feel like you have freedom when in reality you don't, your insurance company tells you how your money is going to be spent.

ictsooner7
12/15/2011, 09:11 PM
Well, ict, you are entitled to your own opinion....
**But, you are NOT entitled to your own facts about tort reform results in Texas.
Although healthcare costs are still rising, they aren't going up the 900% in 3 years like they did in the early 2000s!

900% in three years, really? Up nine times in three years, tripled each year...............right....there goes your credibility.

ictsooner7
12/15/2011, 09:18 PM
No Better Care, Thanks to Tort Reform

25 Responses


By Charles M. Silver


In 2006, Dr. Howard Marcus wrote that Texas’ 2003 tort reform statute sparked an “amazing turnaround” in which doctors came to Texas in droves, instead of leaving the state as they had before. He was doubly wrong. Texas neither lost doctors before 2003 nor gained them especially quickly in subsequent years. In fact, according to statistics published by the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS), the supply of active, direct patient care (DPC) doctors per capita grew faster from 1996 to 2002 than at any time after 2003. If the pre-reform growth rate had simply continued, Texas would have seven more DPC doctors per 100,000 residents than it does today.

Not only did pre-reform Texas outpace post-reform Texas; in the post-reform period Texas fell farther behind the average U.S. state. In 2002, Texas had 61 fewer DPC physicians per 100,000 residents than the average state. In 2010, Texas lagged the average state by a whopping 76.5 doctors per 100,000 residents, according to data published by the American Medical Association (AMA). Texas’ downward slide is also accelerating, meaning that Texas is falling behind the average state both farther and faster each year.

These statistics are public and well known. They can be found at TDSHS’s website and in a report Public Citizen published earlier this year. In view of this, it is shameful that Marcus, his colleagues at the Texas Alliance for Patient Access and Republican politicians continue to mislead. They are blatantly exploiting the ignorance of people who have better things to do than read up on the number of doctors in the State.

Marcus and his accomplices know about TDSHS’s numbers but have ignored them in all prior public statements I’ve found. They want to give glowing reports, so they focus on the number of new licenses granted by the Texas Medical Board (TMB) instead. TMB’s count of new licenses is misleading, however, because it ignores the number of doctors who leave the state, retire, die or stop seeing patients for other reasons. Suppose 100 calves were born into a herd of cattle that also lost 250 adult animals because of the heat and drought. The rancher who owned the herd would say he was down 150 head. Marcus and his buddies would say the herd grew by 100.



Marcus also gives tort reform credit for every doctor who showed up at Texas’ doorstep after the tort reform statute took effect. He ignores the fact that new doctors entered the state every year before 2003, and that many more would have come in later years in the absence of tort reform. It is easy to net out the historical growth rate, but that would make the 2003 statute seem less successful, so Marcus doesn’t do it.

The 2003 statute did have two demonstrable effects. First, it made doctors, hospitals and malpractice insurers millions of dollars richer by devaluing the claims of injured patients. Various sources report that premiums for liability coverage fell by half, and a study by a research group to which I belong finds that, after 2003, the number of dollars flowing to patients declined by more than 70 percent. This is a straightforward redistribution of wealth from malpractice victims to the proponents of tort reform. Second, the statute put many contingent fee lawyers out of business. If you’ve tried to find a lawyer to handle a med mal claim, you’ll have discovered this truth first-hand.

In my opinion, these were the only effects the 2003 statute could reasonably have been predicted to have. They were also the effects, I believe, that the statute’s proponents — including Marcus, Gov. Rick Perry and other Republicans — wanted. Everything else, such as the promised improvements in access to health care and reductions in health care costs, was cotton candy spun to win Texans’ votes and hide the proponents’ self-interest.

I doubt that this column or anything else will persuade Marcus to change his tune. Every day brings fresh evidence that the leaders of America’s medical profession will say anything and everything to avoid liability for medical errors, regardless of the truth. On October 15, 2011, Dr. Robert M. Wah, the AMA’s chairman, published a letter in TheNew York Times claiming that “medical liability reform provides a solid solution for reducing the federal deficit.” I’m surprised he didn’t add that it cures baldness, colds and rheumatism too.

Professor Charles Silver holds the Roy W. and Eugenia C. McDonald Endowed Chair at the University of Texas School of Law, where he writes and teaches about civil procedure, professional responsibility and, increasingly, health care law and policy. This post originally appeared in The Texas Tribune.

ictsooner7
12/15/2011, 09:23 PM
Not my own facts...........

8 years after tort reform, its benefits are disputed


By Jim Fuquay

[email protected]

A new study maintains that Texas limits on damages in medical malpractice cases enacted in 2003 have failed to deliver promised benefits. But the conclusion was quickly challenged by a group representing physicians in the state.

Public Citizen said Wednesday that its new report shows that healthcare costs and insurance premiums have continued to rise in Texas even more than the national average since the state's tort reform legislation, and that the number of uninsured Texans has continued to climb. It also says the legislation did not significantly affect the number of physicians per capita.
"This report shows that the rest of the nation should not hold up Texas as a model. The only winners are the doctors and the insurance companies," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office in Austin.

Howard Marcus, an Austin doctor and chairman of the Texas Alliance for Patient Access, which supports the legislative changes, said the 300-physician clinic where he works has used money saved on malpractice premiums to improve patient services. He declined to disclose the savings but called it "a substantial amount."

Marcus also said his group never argued that caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases would lower overall healthcare costs. But it did argue that the measure would improve Texans' access to physicians, and he said that has happened, especially in high-risk specialties.

Before 2003, Texas ranked 23rd in growth of physicians caring for the general population, he said, but "it is now 10th."

Texas' medical malpractice legislation capped damages for pain and suffering at $250,000 for each responsible care provider involved, up to a maximum $750,000. Economic damages, such as lost income and healthcare expenses, are not capped.

One point on which Public Citizen and Marcus' group agreed is that medical malpractice insurance premiums as well as payments have plummeted.

According to the study, medical malpractice payments in Texas declined about 65 percent, from $247 million in 2003 to $87 million in 2010. It said premiums collected by the Texas Medical Liability Trust, a self-insurance organization owned by physicians that is the state's largest provider of malpractice coverage, fell just over 50 percent in the same period.

Public Citizen maintained that fewer malpractice payments show that Texas physicians are less accountable for their errors than their peers nationally. According to the study, Texas doctors had somewhat more malpractice payments than the U.S. average per 100,000 population before 2003, but nearly 40 percent fewer by 2010.

Marcus said the report presents an argument that "all the crummy doctors are coming here, right? Well, it's just not true."

He said Texas Medical Board data show that there are fewer complaints against physicians licensed in the state after 2003 than against those licensed before 2003


Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/10/12/3440490/8-years-after-tort-reform-its.html#ixzz1gezq3Rdk

Caboose
12/15/2011, 09:45 PM
The left wants the very same thing the right wants;Better service for less money.

No it doesn't. The Left wants the state to control all aspects of the lives of individuals regardless of the consequences.

soonercruiser
12/15/2011, 10:13 PM
I'm always amused by the outcry from the folks who make their living from the healthcare industry. This thread is started by such a person.

Now if we somehow could get back to seeing the Medical Community really make their living from what the market was willing to pay for a Drs advice or help they wouldn't much care for that either. We as a Country have always been the leader in Medicine because of reseach and Development. What we have failed to do is keep costs down and give affordable preventive care to all Americans. We leave many folks without care and yes some do get care for free but others do not. You shouldn't be crippled if someone could do a repair on your knee and get you back to work. You shouldn't have rotten teeth when a filling that used to be $75.00 is now $298.00 because the Doc or dentist likes to go heli-skiing in France twice a year.

What I have highlighted in your stoop post is what a free economic system allows.
(You know, capitalism!)
I had no outcry in my original post. It was a statement about those who think government healthcare is the answer to America's problems.

My latest post was in response to an attack on tort reform.
Please catch up with the discussion.

bigfatjerk
12/15/2011, 10:13 PM
If the left wanted better service for less money then they would advocate letting health care go to the free market instead of single payer which doesn't work because it is government control, there is no market with health care and we end up with everyone having basic care that has no innovation.

bigfatjerk
12/15/2011, 10:15 PM
I'm also against the current health care system in America which is mostly about corporations controlling it instead of any type of free market.

soonercruiser
12/15/2011, 10:17 PM
900% in three years, really? Up nine times in three years, tripled each year...............right....there goes your credibility.

I quoted from the article.
I also provided several article with other links on the subject.
Please read before you attack, it's sooooo Alinskyian!

badger
12/15/2011, 10:38 PM
Doesn't all of this health care craziness make you hope and pray that you are in perfect health the rest of your life and die peacefully without the need for medical assistance or a nursing home or anything?

Perhaps the health care situation will scare people into wanting to lead active, healthy lifestyles. You want to eat that triple burger wrapped in bacon, eh? OK, but you might get your health insurance canceled and be out thousands on your next heart problem... not hungry for that burger anymore, eh? Feel like running a marathon now, eh? Good :)

hawaii 5-0
12/15/2011, 11:41 PM
Let's all go to a kids soccer game after concealed gun carry is now legal and cheer our heads off.

Be sure and wear your kevlar.

5-0

East Coast Bias
12/16/2011, 06:57 AM
If the left wanted better service for less money then they would advocate letting health care go to the free market instead of single payer which doesn't work because it is government control, there is no market with health care and we end up with everyone having basic care that has no innovation.

I am interested in hearing the details of this free market solution you allude to? Vouchers?So far on here the only suggestion I have seen is going back to "cash and carry" healthcare. At least you recognize there are issues with the current system.My point here is that there is no Republican Plan and that tells me they support the current system. I am open to solutions other than single-payer or a government takeover of the industry, but I think any solution that works to reduce cost and improve service has to include participation from all elements of society and some measures to limit what the drug and insurance industry are doing to us.The other elephant in the room is that all this budget gridlock has taken the discussion off the table, yet we continue to find funds to finance all our wars and nation-building overseas.....

bigfatjerk
12/16/2011, 09:11 AM
I think of the plans I've heard out there are the health savings account plans that some states have tried to put in. But I would like to see something like a person choosing their health care based on what they actually want to cover instead of having any type of plan that covers everything. Maybe the only type of basic care plans are for accident care and cancer care. But just about everything else should be up to the individual.

Dale Ellis
12/16/2011, 10:09 AM
I am not telling you what to do with your money, you keep going there and no one has said they want to tell you what to do with your money. You are spending more money because of something that does not exist. Keep blowing your money to prove a point against something that does not exist. The right has suckered you into spending your money so you can feel like you have freedom when in reality you don't, your insurance company tells you how your money is going to be spent.

again, it's my money and if I want to buy my coverage through a private provider rather than have Unlce Sam GIVE me an inferior product, it's my *ucking business not yours. Again, stop telling me how I should or should not be spending the money I earn.

You want the guvment to give you a FREE pinto, I want to buy my own Mercedes. Keep your *ucking hands out of my pocket and out of my life. We ALL know the end goal for you libs, is a single payer guvment run health care system. I think you should have the option of having that if you want, and I should have the option of NOT having it.

Again, who the hell are you to tell me how I should spend MY money, shove off.

Dale Ellis
12/16/2011, 10:12 AM
Let's all go to a kids soccer game after concealed gun carry is now legal and cheer our heads off.

Be sure and wear your kevlar.

5-0

stay at home and live in fear, pffft!!

bigfatjerk
12/16/2011, 10:36 AM
again, it's my money and if I want to buy my coverage through a private provider rather than have Unlce Sam GIVE me an inferior product, it's my *ucking business not yours. Again, stop telling me how I should or should not be spending the money I earn.

The thing is that we don't really have that choice right now. Basically whoever we work for chooses our health care for us for most people. All the government wants to really do is change that to where the government chooses. I don't like either option we need to go the exact opposite way. In the short term suggestions like mine would actually drive up cost till the free market did it's thing and forced costs down as more people would choose their plans more wisely. There's a long history in this country of the people bringing down monopolies pretty easily. They would do the same thing with health care if we allowed for a real free market.

TheHumanAlphabet
12/16/2011, 10:39 AM
Let's all go to a kids soccer game after concealed gun carry is now legal and cheer our heads off.

Be sure and wear your kevlar.

5-0

Huh? What's wrong with conceal carry?

ictsooner7
12/16/2011, 11:30 AM
I quoted from the article.
I also provided several article with other links on the subject.
Please read before you attack, it's sooooo Alinskyian!

You did not quote from the article

What you said; Although healthcare costs are still rising, they aren't going up the 900% in 3 years like they did in the early 2000s!

What the article said; Eight years ago, Texas was in the throes of an epidemic of lawsuit abuse. High numbers of meritless lawsuits, combined with excessive awards, caused doctors’ medical liability rates to double within just four years. Non-profit nursing homes saw their rates jump 900% within that same time frame,

As usual you pulled the typical republican right wing crap, making stuff up. First it was not healthcare costs but NON-PROFIT NURSING HOMES. Second it was four years not three

Like I said there goes your credibility!

Dale Ellis
12/16/2011, 12:16 PM
The thing is that we don't really have that choice right now. Basically whoever we work for chooses our health care for us for most people.

Then you have the choice not to take the plan your employer provides and purchase your own plan. If you can't afford to do it on your own, it's no one else's responsibility or duty to provide it for you.

Dale Ellis
12/16/2011, 12:18 PM
The thing is that we don't really have that choice right now. Basically whoever we work for chooses our health care for us for most people. All the government wants to really do is change that to where the government chooses. I don't like either option we need to go the exact opposite way. In the short term suggestions like mine would actually drive up cost till the free market did it's thing and forced costs down as more people would choose their plans more wisely. There's a long history in this country of the people bringing down monopolies pretty easily. They would do the same thing with health care if we allowed for a real free market.

agree, if we let the free market work the way it supposed to, insurance companies will either have to compete for business and adjust their prices accordingly or they will simply vanish. The way the banks and GM should have when they were so irresponsible.

soonercruiser
12/16/2011, 02:43 PM
You did not quote from the article

What you said; Although healthcare costs are still rising, they aren't going up the 900% in 3 years like they did in the early 2000s!

What the article said; Eight years ago, Texas was in the throes of an epidemic of lawsuit abuse. High numbers of meritless lawsuits, combined with excessive awards, caused doctors’ medical liability rates to double within just four years. Non-profit nursing homes saw their rates jump 900% within that same time frame,

As usual you pulled the typical republican right wing crap, making stuff up. First it was not healthcare costs but NON-PROFIT NURSING HOMES. Second it was four years not three

Like I said there goes your credibility!

Ict,
You are correct! I misspoke in my introductory statement. I should have been specific about what insurance costs went up 900%! The statement I made should have specified that the 900% jump in insurance costs were "Non-profit nursing homes saw their rates jump 900% within that same time frame.........as you say.
(And BTW, I am not like some posters - at least I posted the story link for others to read completely, and come to their own conclusions, didn't I?)

However, you must be another LW wackjob if you attack every time a poster you disagree with makes an accidental misreference, or misquotes actual words in an article......as a way to dismiss the whole argument!
The post was about the cost of malpratice insurance contributing to the rising cost of healthcare.
That fact stands, no matter how much you would like to change the facts.

If I lose any credibility by apologizing that I misquoted where the malpractice insurance went up 900%, so be it!
At least I am man enough to have admitted several mistakes on this forum!

I'll be watching your posts closely in the future also!