Equality for All!!!

[Fraulein Hilda]

Thanks to public schools, these drones have a very one dimensional view of what makes the cost of goods.

High cost, high profit - bad. Low cost, low profit - good. With the possible exception of Wal-Mart on the latter.

Cognitive dissonance is a full time job when you're a liberal.

 

[Care4all]

so what do you suggest are the messures that need to be taken to truly address the outrageous amounts of money we spend on healthcare and why do you think your messures will trally work?

i am not set on any one solution or one means to address our problems...but i know, with every ounce of intelligence God gave me, that we do have major problems that have to be addressed and can;t be ignored.

care

"Outrageous amounts of money" by whose definition??

If the competitive pricing and subsequently falling costs of cash-and-carry procedures like Lasik, plastic surgery, and hair transplants aren't proof enough of how returning medical services to a truly free market model will work, what evidence would you accept??

i don't think one procedure or the cosmetic industry of health care can compare with the nonelective, health side of it....

cosmetic, elective surgeries allows the free market to work because there is no need or necessity to it or time barriers.

you have time to shop around, businesses become more competitive to get your business...

when your arm is cut off by a tractor, or you have a heart attack, or you have cancer...there is not time to call and price things to see what doc or hospital to use....

health care choices is not deciding what shoes to buy and whom to buy them from and for what outfit to where them with....ones health is not a proverbial widget bought and sold in capitalism imo...it just doesn't fit the pure capitalistic mold, how could it?

i am not against capitalism, i made my living in that arena, the corporate end of it and i just don't think dealing with ones health care is done in the same manner or under the same conditions as every day shopping.

care

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

so what do you suggest are the messures that need to be taken to truly address the outrageous amounts of money we spend on healthcare and why do you think your messures will trally work?

i am not set on any one solution or one means to address our problems...but i know, with every ounce of intelligence God gave me, that we do have major problems that have to be addressed and can;t be ignored.

care

"Outrageous amounts of money" by whose definition??

If the competitive pricing and subsequently falling costs of cash-and-carry procedures like Lasik, plastic surgery, and hair transplants aren't proof enough of how returning medical services to a truly free market model will work, what evidence would you accept??

i don't think one procedure or the cosmetic industry of health care can compare with the nonelective, health side of it....

cosmetic, elective surgeries allows the free market to work because there is no need or necessity to it or time barriers.

you have time to shop around, businesses become more competitive to get your business...

when your arm is cut off by a tractor, or you have a heart attack, or you have cancer...there is not time to call and price things to see what doc or hospital to use....

health care choices is not deciding what shoes to buy and whom to buy them from and for what outfit to where them with....ones health is not a proverbial widget bought and sold in capitalism imo...it just doesn't fit the pure capitalistic mold, how could it?

i am not against capitalism, i made my living in that arena, the corporate end of it and i just don't think dealing with ones health care is done in the same manner or under the same conditions as every day shopping.

care

For all but catastrophic or chronic illness it is.

 

[Oddball]

i don't think one procedure or the cosmetic industry of health care can compare with the nonelective, health side of it....

cosmetic, elective surgeries allows the free market to work because there is no need or necessity to it or time barriers.

you have time to shop around, businesses become more competitive to get your business...

when your arm is cut off by a tractor, or you have a heart attack, or you have cancer...there is not time to call and price things to see what doc or hospital to use....

Things at the 7-11 cost more than what you can get at the grocery store....Airline tickets bought at the last minute cost more than those reserved weeks in advance...So, what else is new??

Life's tough, shit happens, wear a helmet.

health care choices is not deciding what shoes to buy and whom to buy them from and for what outfit to where them with....ones health is not a proverbial widget bought and sold in capitalism imo...it just doesn't fit the pure capitalistic mold, how could it?

Says who??

i am not against capitalism, i made my living in that arena, the corporate end of it and i just don't think dealing with ones health care is done in the same manner or under the same conditions as every day shopping.

care

Your limiting beliefs are your problem.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

You must eat every day. Does capitalism not work for that? Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective. Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in? Or just the few people who can't afford housing?

 

[Care4all]

You must eat every day. Does capitalism not work for that? Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?

obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

You must eat every day. Does capitalism not work for that? Do a handful of poor people justify a government take over of the entire food industry?

obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....

Bullshit. He intends to create a new public health care benefit paid for by taxing private health care out of business and/or competing with it in a predatory fashion to drive it out of business. Read up on it. Democrats are not bashful about their intensions here.

Don't be a sucker.

It's completely about command and control.

 

[Oddball]

obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....

Total lie....Not saying that you're willingly lying, but that your promulgating the lie that is the party line.

The private sector will be no more in "complete control" of delivery of medical services, any more than GM is in "complete control" of who their CEO is or what kinds of cars they will be allowed to build.

A pit bull is a pit bull, not a chihuahua....A shark is a shark, not a guppy....A Marxist is a Marxist, not a free marketer.

 

[Care4all]

Is $100,000 an outrageous amount of money for a house or $1,000,000? Is $4/gallon for gas outrageous? How about $3/gallon?

If I sold tacos out of a cart at care4all's place of employment for $25 each because the owner of her company negotiated that, so that others could eat lunch for free, would care4all be smart enough to go down the block and see if she could get a taco cheaper?

We are paying the $25 dollars NOW for a SINGLE taco....so, what's your plan? Keep it the same? Let that $25 taco turn in to a $30 dollar taco the next year or a $35 taco the year after that? This IS WHAT IS HAPPENING already and being an ostrich will not help us, only make it worse fraulein.

care

 

[Care4all]

obama's plan is no where near a government takeover....he keeps the private sector in complete control including the private sector insurance industry who collects 30 percent of all healthcare spending and profits...for pushing paper around only and not providing health care itself....and without any measures taken that could reduce the wasteful end of it....it has some big problems in my book....

Total lie....Not saying that you're willingly lying, but that your promulgating the lie that is the party line.

The private sector will be no more in "complete control" of delivery of medical services, any more than GM is in "complete control" of who their CEO is or what kinds of cars they will be allowed to build.

A pit bull is a pit bull, not a chihuahua....A shark is a shark, not a guppy....A Marxist is a Marxist, not a free marketer.

So you think the Insurance corporations are all goo goo ga ga over this plan because they see themselves losing money in the long run Dude? I don't.

Care

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

So you think the Insurance corporations are all goo goo ga ga over this plan because they see themselves losing money in the long run Dude? I don't.

Care

I wouldn't say Insurance Corporations are all "goo goo ga ga" over the plan, however it's clear that certain players will support it because it's an opportunity for them to get their fingers deeper into the legalized plunder pie and reduce competition via fiat. This is not a valid argument for implementing a new government health care program, all it indicates is that certain players will gladly take additional corporate welfare and regulatory favoritism (nothing new there).

 

[DavidS]

Unfortunately, some of our older folks on this forum think the C and S words are supposed to scare us. Ohhh nooo communism! Ohhh nooo socialism!! The only reason why they're scary words is because they're linked to totalitarian regime's in Asia that abuse human rights very openly and publicly when in fact, neither economic model actually include abusing and killing your people as part of its business model.

Additionally, both Russia and China are very poor, right? Well is Russia is actually MORE POOR under their version of capitalism than they were under communism. Yes, the people are free, but they have no food on their tables. And China's economy is growing 6-7% every quarter. If our economy was growing 6-7% every quarter can you imagine what we would be like???

I hate to steal a few lines from the Matrix 3 but...

Communism and socialism are not economic business models. They are words. What matters is the connection the words imply. The right-wing conservatives will try to scare you and tell you that these words mean very bad things. Perception = reality. The way you perceive things becomes your version of reality.

If you do your research, though, there are some ideas, not all, just a few, in communism and socialism that are actually good ideas. The current healthcare system in the United States is corrupt, badly run, and leaves tens of millions of people without coverage. If they get sick - who's going to help them? Healthcare bills for the uninsured makeup 60% of all bankruptcies right now.

The right-wing is telling us that the new government system is going to put insurance companies out of business. My question is - why can't they adapt? Any good businessperson will adapt to his competition and make his product better than his competition. The health insurance companies have had decades to improve - and they haven't. Why? Because they don't have to. They can continue giving us the lowest quality health insurance for the maximum price as long as they want to until someone, somewhere does something about it. That someone is the Federal Government from Washington DC.

 

[Navy1960]

Care, while I somewhat agree with your assesment that malpractice rates are out of control and are causing GP's, as well as many Healthcare workers and Hospitals to pass along those costs to the the public or just plain cut back on services. I don't think that this is a result of the insurance companies actually trying to recover losses in the stock market or increase profits on the trading floor to pad the bottom line for the shareholders. While yes , these comnpanies are in the business to make money and are "for profit" companies, I personally don't see anything wrong with that. While of course others are free to disagree with me on that point and I guess when you get right down to it. thats the real issue here, are insurance companies entitled to make a profit. While I understand you see it as a company making money off the pain and suffer of others, and I see it as company making money for providing a much needed service. I do believe, that all these issues while linked. liability, malpractice, etc.etc are all contributing factors to the high costs of medical care and can be addressed withing the framework of our Govt. and done so in a manner that does not mandate healthcare for all. It would be my goal here to have a healthcare system that make healthcare available and affordable for those that wish it have it, as it should be in a a free society such as ours. Now while that may be somewhat old fashioned I suppose, in my mind that thinking should never go out of style. To me this issue is a problem easily resolved once you get the special interests out of the way and actually work in the problem. Those special interests are on both sides of the isle and the majority of people who want and need affodable healthcare are usually caught in the middle. Now you asked me for a few suggestions that I might make, those were just a few in my previous post. While I understand that not one single issue is the cause when you take them in combination and adress them one by one, then you will have something. Again, though Care. and you know I respect and admire your opinion, however on this issue you must understand that my position is acutally quite clear. My position is that the Federal Govt. is not chartered under the constitution to provide healthcare for it's citizens, and keeping this in mind, while I understand the need to reform costs and bring them under cnotrol in the healthcare industry. The framework is actually in place at least in my mind to do these things without a massive Federal Govt. intervention in a private industry. Still further, as a suggestion, I submit all those that are advocating "nationalized healthcare" in whatever form it happens to be in, should consider a constitutional amendment that works within the framework of our form of Govt.

ewer medical malpractice claims are being filed. States that passed tort reform saw a significant drop in the number of claims filed, and those that did not pass reform also saw a decline, according to Gen Re, a reinsurer of medical malpractice insurance companies. To explain the trend, analysts point to the results of patient safety initiatives, including better risk management; fewer “frivolous” suits; the increasing costs of bringing a case to trial, which may have caused plaintiffs’ attorneys to concentrate on cases with the greatest recovery potential; and society’s growing concern about the impact of litigiousness.


But the dollar amount of each claim is increasing. In a report on the medical malpractice insurance environment, Gen Re notes that claim costs for physicians and surgeons rose 7 percent and 9.5 percent for hospitals. Likewise, the insurance broker Aon, in its Hospital Professional Liability and Physician Liability 2006 Benchmark Analysis, examining more than 47,700 claims representing more than $4.4 billion of incurred losses, found that while claim frequency is stabilizing, the average size of claims continues to increase at a rate of 6 percent a year. The average amount paid to plaintiffs increased only 3 percent, while amounts paid to defend against liability claims rose 17 percent as hospitals mount a more aggressive defense of claims.


Claims, Jury Awards and Settlements: A report on the state’s medical malpractice insurance market by the Florida Department of Insurance shows the breakdown of claims payments in 2006. Insurers paid out $602 million on 3,811 closed claims, with 62 percent going for economic damages and 38 percent for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering.
III - Medical Malpractice

A little light reading on the malpractice issue and the liability issue. As I suggested putting caps on jury awards is just one factor in a big picture.

In a competitive market, however, driving such hard bargains is impossible, so relative prices reflect actual relative costs. The kind of plan the Obama administration envisions gives us the worst of both worlds. Its artificially low premiums will drive most private insurance out of business. Once there are no private insurers left, there will be no place left to shift costs. In a very short time, then, we'll have no reduction in cost due to cost shifting, and we'll have substantially less competition. The absence of competition will result in higher actual costs. This has been the experience in countries with nationalized health care, which is why many have an even worse entitlement problem looming than the United States.

The better solution is to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of employer-provided insurance. That also, indirectly, would reduce the scale of the other major problem in American health care: covering the uninsured. Now it is very difficult to purchase insurance if you are not employed or if you work for a very small employer. Once insurance migrates out of large employer pools, sufficiently large pools will become possible with individualized insurance. Customers then would be able to vote with their feet if they are unsatisfied, and those who don't work for large employers no longer would have to pay higher premiums than everyone else.
Health care reform: The real problem is lack of competition - STLtoday.com

I also mentioned a little something about providing an evironment that promotes competetion which the Federal Govt. has every right to do. When people have greater choice prices come down. Don't get me wrong here Care I'm all for reforming the health insurance industry however I don't think the way to do about it is to have a Federal Govt. mandated insurance program nor a Federal Govt. insurance option in direct competetion with the same companies you regulate.

 

[Care4all]

What is the well needed service that the insurance companies supply Navy....?

and i still haven't finished your post, but that question immediately came to mind...

and as far as insurance companies raising their rates on us for our policies because they were unprofitable with other areas of their business is a KNOWN FACT and an easy google, honestly.

and good morning Navy very glad to see you back!

Care

 

[Care4all]

I agree we need to make health care more affordable and measures to do this should be the FIRST steps taken, before they go off and issue some sort of patch to the problem....And this is not old fashioned, it is just common sense.

fyi-still reading the very long post Navy...

 

[Nik]

Shelter is expensive, and it's not elective. Does this justify the government making decisions on every house everyone lives in? Or just the few people who can't afford housing?

It justifies them offering public housing...which oh hey, they already do.

So why can't they offer public healthcare?

 

[Care4all]

haven't read the link yet, but right now, i totally disagree with you on cutting out the employer's tax deduction for their portion of what they pay for your medical insurance...doing such would reduce the amount of employers covering ones healthcare costs and most people can not afford the 10k or more for insurance for the three to four years before prices would eventually come down, IF AT ALL....because this would make LESS PEOPLE have coverage and not more...that's dreamland if you think it will make more people have coverage imo....but again, haven't read the article yet Navy...

care

 

[Navy1960]

Virtually all assets in the Soviet economy were owned by the state and controlled by its agents. The government agency Gosplan (Russian acronym for State Planning Committee) drafted the national plan. It defined not only the country’s investment targets but also precise physical quotas for every enterprise’s output, the mix of economic inputs (such as raw materials and labor) it was to use, and a detailed schedule for completion. Another government committee fixed wholesale and almost all retail prices.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - MSN Encarta
But there were more immediate causes for the collapse. In the middle 1980's about seventy percent of the industrial output of the Soviet Union was going to the military. Oleg Gordievsky, a KGB official who defected to Britain, asserted that at least one third of the total output was going to the military. British intelligence could not believe such a high figure but later Western intelligence sources estimated that it was at least fifty percent. One can only imagine what a severe shortages of industrial goods there were for the rest of the economy.
The Economic Collapse of the Soviet Union

Well aside from a movies editorial as to what the C and S words are, the fact remains a system of Govt. based on the teachings of Karl Marx was an abject failure. I think my original post on the state of the Soviet medical system would give you some idea of that. Thats not adapting, thats taking failed lessons learned in the past and trying to apply them to today.

 

[Care4all]

Navy, I don't believe the government has the right to cap liability suits, PERIOD. That is an over reach of the government and it is NOT right for them to legislate something that the free market should decide and to do this for only one industry, while other high risk industries would LOVE the same political machinations for themselves...who next? Will we have our government limit the coal mine owners on people suing them for BEING NEGLIGENT? Or the Airlines if their negligence caused a crash and the death or injuries of those people? We have a constitutional right to redress grievances....no?