Benjibear
Monday, July 2, 2012 10:47:57 AM
Originally Posted by: Soda Guy 

Benji

The only thing that keeps your ideas from being put to practical use is you didn't leave room for one thing.


GREED


That is what keeps your plan from working. Greed from providers, insurance companies and yes individuals that try and do beat the system




Very true. If you don't have money, you want money. If you have money, you want more. If you get more, you still want more. The more money you have the more power you have to make more money. The more money you make, the more power you get.
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Monday, July 2, 2012 11:41:30 AM
Originally Posted by: Soda Guy 

Benji

The only thing that keeps your ideas from being put to practical use is you didn't leave room for one thing.


GREED


That is what keeps your plan from working. Greed from providers, insurance companies and yes individuals that try and do beat the system



And with the GOVT it is an unquenchable thirst for POWER. This Obamacare does not address any issue with the rise in cost, quality of care or quantity of care. It takes from those who have and gives it to those who don't. It takes from one group (those pay now) and gives it to specific groups namely illegals and those who support him. Read the details. If you have good insurance you will be taxed but but the unions with their great plans are exempted until at least 2018. WHY???? Just so you know many union, state, 401s and individual pensions receive money from those insurance company profits. Kill the insurance companies by running them in to bankruptcy with regulation (which is what the intent is) and what happens to regular folks who have their money (pensions) vested in those companies? Answer:::They lose it all.
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Erik9976
Monday, July 2, 2012 11:51:44 AM
We need Tort and insurance reform and the darn government out of our lives.
Soda Guy
Monday, July 2, 2012 1:33:51 PM
Originally Posted by: Erik9976 

We need Tort and insurance reform and the darn government out of our lives.




Did you REALLY think that statemnt thru? At first you are wanting the government (who else can do the reform) to step in and in the last part of one sentence you want less government.

Maybe you meant you wanted a more responsible government. A more reasonable government and one that rewrites its rules and regulations that can be read and understood by the majority of the people.

bigjlh
Monday, July 2, 2012 2:22:25 PM
imho. it seems to me just 1 person 1 vote all we have is a two party dictatorship. who ever has the most scratch. will win i thought when rohm emanual. left the white house.it was to reignite that machine in chicago.and we all know what that is all about. daly thru and thru. make your vote count on the second tuesday in nov. and we as voter s from what ever party you support the mule or elephant. hope it works out the way you choose then the real changes can start. but it is up to us as voters. thnx bigjlh please excuse spelling. comma s period etc
Erik9976
Monday, July 2, 2012 8:23:05 PM
Originally Posted by: Soda Guy 

Did you REALLY think that statemnt thru? At first you are wanting the government (who else can do the reform) to step in and in the last part of one sentence you want less government.

Maybe you meant you wanted a more responsible government. A more reasonable government and one that rewrites its rules and regulations that can be read and understood by the majority of the people.


Yes I did. You really must have nothing better to do than pick at my posts.
godsonsafari
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 9:02:40 AM
The point made about tort/insurance reform is that it requires regulation. Tort reform, believe it or not, is actually the government restricting freedom on your ability to legally recover damages. There is no "less government" in that solution.

The government has always had their hands in Medicare. Its run and funded by the US Government and has been since inception. There's a vast number of reasons why health insurance costs have risen over the last 40 years; legal rulings, new practices that cost money, new equipment, etc. There's a hopelessly complex billing system behind all of it that costs until billions to operate.

To reply to a different post....

Quote:

An uninsured friend of mine had his lip torn off by a dog. He went to the EC and they gave him 2 shots, bandages, and a phone number of a surgeon, since they had none on staff capable of the job. He went to the surgeon and had it reattached.

When the bills came, the hospital charged him around $30,000 and the surgeon charged him about $500.



The government has nothing to do with any of that. An emergency clinic isn't going to do reconstructive surgery. If he don't have insurance, they charge you crazy amounts of money because you aren't capable of negotiating the price down. You think Blue Cross Blue Shield would actually pay $30,000 for that surgery? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Let me make this very clear: Medicaid and Medicare are not responsible for the inflation of medical costs. They pay out quickly for procedures and exams, but they also pay crappy amounts. Doctors and facilities always prefer commercial/private insurance because they pay more money. Where I work, a medical procedure out of pocket will run you about $1500 minimum. That's no insurance, I'm paying cash. If Medicaid is paying for it? They might pay 1/10th of that. Health care providers aren't all that excited about one payer healthcare because they'd make less money, not because it benefits you.

Quote:

Then there is another friend who has $1100 deducted from his pension for insurance. He's paid out in excess of $100,000 since the last time they've paid a dime. He can't even cancel his insurance to put that $1100 a month toward the bills.



Its the government's fault that his private insurance plan paid through by his pension won't cover his medical expenses and probably wants him to go to crappy doctors? No, it isn't, actually.
Bowler Roller
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 11:33:53 AM
Quote:

The government has nothing to do with any of that. An emergency clinic isn't going to do reconstructive surgery. If he don't have insurance, they charge you crazy amounts of money because you aren't capable of negotiating the price down. You think Blue Cross Blue Shield would actually pay $30,000 for that surgery? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



I meant to say "ER", not "EC". He went to one of this areas biggest hospitals.

I've clearly been blaming both insurance companies and the government for high costs, and used that anecdote to show big hospitals are also part of that problem.

I see my mothers bills. BC/BS does pay outrageous fees. Personally, I pay less than insured patients at doctors offices.

Quote:

Its the government's fault that his private insurance plan paid through by his pension won't cover his medical expenses and probably wants him to go to crappy doctors? No, it isn't, actually



No. In this case, it's the union and insurance companies fault.

Quote:

Tort reform, believe it or not, is actually the government restricting freedom on your ability to legally recover damages. There is no "less government" in that solution.



A tort is a settlement imposed by the government. Tort reform is the government protecting against the government. High torts raise the costs of doing business.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
godsonsafari
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 11:43:54 AM
Quote:

I meant to say "ER", not "EC". He went to one of this areas biggest hospitals.



Then they may lack specialists, plastic surgeons, etc. Being a hospital with a ton of beds doesn't make you a Level 1 Trauma Center. Generally they'd prefer to do it on an emergency basis and then try to recover money from the state.

Quote:

I see my mothers bills. BC/BS does pay outrageous fees. Personally, I pay less than insured patients at doctors offices.



BC/BS pays those fees to get the breadth of coverage they do. Every insurance company has to sit down and work out contracts with facilities to be an "in network provider". This is especially important with private healthcare facilities.

Quote:

No. In this case, it's the union and insurance companies fault.



So it has nothing to do with the government. He'd be better off with government insurance, actually.

Quote:

A tort is a settlement imposed by the government. Tort reform is the government protecting against the government. High torts raise the costs of doing business.



Tort Law is a fancy term for civil law, AKA civil court. Anything that occurs in or through a court occurs through the government. Tort reform has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the general public against the rampant abuses of government. Tort reform, as it is generally pushed towards voters, is intended to convince them to limit their ability to use the civil courts to correct or receive damages from wrongs. It is very clearly and definitively a reduction in rights.
flamo
  •  flamo
  • 87.94% (Honored)
  • Operations Foreman Topic Starter
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 12:16:23 PM
Originally Posted by: godsonsafari 

The point made about tort/insurance reform is that it requires regulation. Tort reform, believe it or not, is actually the government restricting freedom on your ability to legally recover damages. There is no "less government" in that solution.

The government has always had their hands in Medicare. Its run and funded by the US Government and has been since inception. There's a vast number of reasons why health insurance costs have risen over the last 40 years; legal rulings, new practices that cost money, new equipment, etc. There's a hopelessly complex billing system behind all of it that costs until billions to operate.

To reply to a different post....



The government has nothing to do with any of that. An emergency clinic isn't going to do reconstructive surgery. If he don't have insurance, they charge you crazy amounts of money because you aren't capable of negotiating the price down. You think Blue Cross Blue Shield would actually pay $30,000 for that surgery? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Let me make this very clear: Medicaid and Medicare are not responsible for the inflation of medical costs. They pay out quickly for procedures and exams, but they also pay crappy amounts. Doctors and facilities always prefer commercial/private insurance because they pay more money. Where I work, a medical procedure out of pocket will run you about $1500 minimum. That's no insurance, I'm paying cash. If Medicaid is paying for it? They might pay 1/10th of that. Health care providers aren't all that excited about one payer healthcare because they'd make less money, not because it benefits you.



Its the government's fault that his private insurance plan paid through by his pension won't cover his medical expenses and probably wants him to go to crappy doctors? No, it isn't, actually.


I spent 18 months trying to find out why costs are so high. WHen my daughter was born in 1960 I had no insurance thus I paid the entire bill. It included 5 days in the hospital for wife and daughter, the doctor and everything else. Total $208.60 What is it now and why so costly? At that time I was new on the job and paid $10 a week on the bill. I was making $1.80 an hour. That was my starting point.

I have yet to find all the data needed but I did find at the HHS website a few neat charts, I applied know history to those charts and it apparent everytime the govt does or proposes something costs jump.

Let me address medical malpractice first. Years ago it was almost unheard of. Now it is advertised. So who gains the most, the lawyer or the wronged party? Most lawyers get a third after expenses, but look at those expenses. The lawyers end up with the biggest chunk and what is worse the doctor remains in the system. That has to change. In lower rate states with some tort reform in a low risk category annual cost to the doctor is about $23,000 a year. Who pays it? The highest are OBGYNs in FL, $248,000 a year for insurance. This has to change

http://www.snopes.com/po...immigration/parkland.asp 
It clearly points out the problem. Obamacare never addresses this. Non citizens will be still add expense to the system but never pay into it.

This is only a part of I found. I don't want post page after page. Even the Canadian system is stressed to the point where they will no longer service refugees. To what extent I don't know. Romneycare in MA is now taking 41% of their budget, cutting into other programs including education. ER non refusal of treatment was passed in 1986
I'm there, Old, Tired, Broke and Henpecked
Bowler Roller
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 12:28:50 PM
Quote:

Then they may lack specialists, plastic surgeons, etc. Being a hospital with a ton of beds doesn't make you a Level 1 Trauma Center.



Google William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak Mi, if you like.

Quote:

Tort Law is a fancy term for civil law, AKA civil court. Anything that occurs in or through a court occurs through the government. Tort reform has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the general public against the rampant abuses of government. Tort reform, as it is generally pushed towards voters, is intended to convince them to limit their ability to use the civil courts to correct or receive damages from wrongs. It is very clearly and definitively a reduction in rights



Done right, it protects the people. Done wrong, it hurts them. I have no confidence that it would ever be done right.

Quote:

So it has nothing to do with the government. He'd be better off with government insurance, actually



Even retired, he makes way too much for "government insurance". In fact, this bill would further forbid him from dropping his insurance.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum
Erik9976
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 5:53:20 PM
I personally think the only time you should be allowed to sue the doctors or hospitals is if they were negligent as in doctor was drunk or high. That's just my opinion. Remember doctors are human just like us and do mistakes. If you want perfection then we better figure out some way to make robot doctors.
godsonsafari
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:27:27 PM
Originally Posted by: Bowler Roller 

Google William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak Mi, if you like.



They may not have had the surgeon available that day. Who knows? Hospitals don't work with everything operating and being available 24/7. That's not how medical care works.

Quote:

Done right, it protects the people. Done wrong, it hurts them. I have no confidence that it would ever be done right.



Are criminal courts "done right"? I bet there's some people with a different perspective on it. Ultimately, I don't like the idea that I should have my rights limited to damages incurred to me because it makes things cheaper. Maybe its me, but I don't see the government determining what my or my wife's life is worth monetarily being something indicative of a reduction in government's intrusion in my life. YMMV.

Quote:

Even retired, he makes way too much for "government insurance". In fact, this bill would further forbid him from dropping his insurance.



Is he underage for SS benefits? No one makes too much money for Medicare.

Quote:

I personally think the only time you should be allowed to sue the doctors or hospitals is if they were negligent as in doctor was drunk or high.



Says the guy who didn't have a surgical clamp left in him by a tech. Its not fun for me to sit and rifle through a million questions when a patient comes to our facility, but reducing liability or removing it doesn't make the world any better or safer. If you have a condition that could kill you by having a particular exam, would you prefer we screen for that or just let you crash on the table while telling you you're an idiot for not googling up the procedure you were having? Exactly.
Benjibear
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 7:58:55 PM
If we had robot doctors, we would then sue the builders, programers, maintenance companies, etc.

Also, are we suppose to have robot engineers, teachers, police officers, cooks, bus drivers, pilots, etc., etc.

Yes, if a doctor is high or drunk they are liable. They could also liable if there mind wasn't on their work, they were trying to rush through to get another patient, just tired because they had to stay up late to watch the big game, or maybe life's problems. As professionals, they should decline to give service if they are not up to being able to do it. Any professional is to do this even if it is woman that makes $5 an hour to cut your hair or a truck driver for a few examples. That is why states license many professions and one thing that is common with all professions is you have certain legal responsibilities to meet.

The issue with lawsuits is what is the life or injury really worth? Then add the lawyer fees on top it. Also, was it really the doctors fault? There are many unforeseen circumstances that a doctor could encounter. It is a very large gray area there. Then what is the life worth? Is an 85 year old grandfather's life worth the same as a 30 year old father of 2? How exactly do you calculate the value?
It is what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.
Bowler Roller
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 9:02:31 PM
The hospital, and it's nearby sister, in question has more operating rooms and surgeons than most. Apparently, none of them was good enough for the job.

Quote:

Are criminal courts "done right"?



No.

Quote:

Maybe its me, but I don't see the government determining what my or my wife's life is worth monetarily being something indicative of a reduction in government's intrusion in my life.



In a civil case, the government does exactly that.

Quote:

Is he underage for SS benefits? No one makes too much money for Medicare



He gets medicare, but his wife and daughter don't. This bill does nothing for them.
Every crowd has a silver lining - PT Barnum