Equality for All!!!

[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?

Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights. You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.

if you limit what someone can be sued for BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE, then this will become a statistical calculation of where they will count on being negligent, while still being profitable and we humans just become numbers...on whether they can afford to let us die or how many of us they can let die through their own negligence, with only having to pay the cap, the calculated risk....they will factor in negligence as an acceptable risk....and not address the actual negligence and why it happens repeatedly with some folks....

Not knowing what your monetary punishment will be, because every case does not have the same damages is part of the self governess of the free market industries....

This makes them strive for perfection, and running a business without negligence....without having government having to regulate them to the hilt imo...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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?

Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights. You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.

if you limit what someone can be sued for BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE, then this will become a statistical calculation of where they will count on being negligent, while still being profitable and we humans just become numbers...on whether they can afford to let us die or how many of us they can let die through their own negligence, with only having to pay the cap, the calculated risk....they will factor in negligence as an acceptable risk....and not address the actual negligence and why it happens repeatedly with some folks....

Not knowing what your monetary punishment will be, because every case does not have the same damages is part of the self governess of the free market industries....

This makes them strive for perfection, and running a business without negligence....without having government having to regulate them to the hilt imo...

One doesn't havbe to limit anything... one merely has to stop playing idiot where it comes to the concept of malfeasance...

What is HILARIOUS to me, is the advocates of unbridled tort are inevitably advocates of this government healthcare system, which will inevitably require the elimination of any form of tort...

And this as the average skill sets of physicians and staff decline exponentially and conditions deteriorate... INEVITABLY providing as the STANDARD... EVERYTHING THE IDIOTS CLAIMED TO STAND AGAINST.

It's what they like to call 'unintended consequences', a term they use even when the 'consequences' are an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!

 

[Care4all]

The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...

the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....

so, they truly have a model where they don't have nearly the costs of taking care of us as is implied....they only cover the, for the most part, healthy...the elderly costs have been put on the tax payer with medicare.... adding more healthy for the most part, people to the insurance rolls will reduce the cost of health care, if done right... i can see the business model where this actually is feasible....

I could sell a shoe for less money, if I bought a lot more of it to sell in the same period of time and still come out, equally profitable....

selling 100 prs with $4 bucks profit

or

Selling 200 prs with $2 bucks profit

6 or one half dozen...I made my profit goal.

NOT that I am all set on Obama's plan....I honestly don't know enough details and would need to spend a day or two or three really analyzing it.....

All I am saying is that it is feasible, that health care insurance costs, would reduce if we added 40 million to the insurance rolls...

care

And you will get what you pay for.

It's the SAME SHOE, with the same quality... i can sell 100 pairs at $50, with my profit for each one sold is $4 bucks a pair.... so $400 in profit made...

Or the same shoe, I can sell 200 hundred of them at $40 bucks with a $2 buck profit for each in them, which comes out to $400 in profit made...if both were sold during the same time period.

But yes, i can see how health care may not fit in with normal business theory...as I mentioned earlier, it is not a widget.

 

[Care4all]

Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights. You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.

if you limit what someone can be sued for BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE, then this will become a statistical calculation of where they will count on being negligent, while still being profitable and we humans just become numbers...on whether they can afford to let us die or how many of us they can let die through their own negligence, with only having to pay the cap, the calculated risk....they will factor in negligence as an acceptable risk....and not address the actual negligence and why it happens repeatedly with some folks....

Not knowing what your monetary punishment will be, because every case does not have the same damages is part of the self governess of the free market industries....

This makes them strive for perfection, and running a business without negligence....without having government having to regulate them to the hilt imo...

One doesn't havbe to limit anything... one merely has to stop playing idiot where it comes to the concept of malfeasance...

What is HILARIOUS to me, is the advocates of unbridled tort are inevitably advocates of this government healthcare system, which will inevitably require the elimination of any form of tort...

And this as the average skill sets of physicians and staff decline exponentially and conditions deteriorate... INEVITABLY providing as the STANDARD... EVERYTHING THE IDIOTS CLAIMED TO STAND AGAINST.

It's what they like to call 'unintended consequences', a term they use even when the 'consequences' are an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY!

Are medicare patients not allowed to be involved in suing if negligence occurred?

Not that I am aware of....

Are citizens with private insurance not allowed to be involved in the tort system?

I guess i don't understand PI?

care

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The premiums are NOT artificially low....the premiums are lower because more people are buying it and the cost of medical care, the healthy against the old, would lower the cost of health care if more people are added to the pool...

the insurance companies lobbied Congress many moons ago for Medicare....they refused to cover the elderly with insurance...they dropped them when they were old and they actually needed insurance, so our congress passed medicare to cover the elderly....a HUGE GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry....

so, they truly have a model where they don't have nearly the costs of taking care of us as is implied....they only cover the, for the most part, healthy...the elderly costs have been put on the tax payer with medicare.... adding more healthy for the most part, people to the insurance rolls will reduce the cost of health care, if done right... i can see the business model where this actually is feasible....

I could sell a shoe for less money, if I bought a lot more of it to sell in the same period of time and still come out, equally profitable....

selling 100 prs with $4 bucks profit

or

Selling 200 prs with $2 bucks profit

6 or one half dozen...I made my profit goal.

NOT that I am all set on Obama's plan....I honestly don't know enough details and would need to spend a day or two or three really analyzing it.....

All I am saying is that it is feasible, that health care insurance costs, would reduce if we added 40 million to the insurance rolls...

care

And you will get what you pay for.

It's the SAME SHOE, with the same quality... i can sell 100 pairs at $50, with my profit for each one sold is $4 bucks a pair.... so $400 in profit made...

Or the same shoe, I can sell 200 hundred of them at $40 bucks with a $2 buck profit for each in them, which comes out to $400 in profit made...if both were sold during the same time period.

But yes, i can see how health care may not fit in with normal business theory...as I mentioned earlier, it is not a widget.

Healthcare is not a widget... it is a service. And where that service has a set liability against it, for which it must charge it's customer, before ANYONE providing that service gets paid... BEFORE ANY consideration if given to supply and demand for the UNCOMMON SKILLS of say a neuro-surgeon... or the pristine state of the art facilities... those fixed liabilities come FIRST and ALL other natural considerations are ADDED TO THEM.

The exponential increases in healthcare are directly, exclusively associated with those artificial liabilities induced by government. Yet you idiots are DEMANDING that GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION; when as Reagan pointed out... GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!

 

[Oddball]

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?

And we all know what a smashing success gubmint housing projects have been!!

See: Cabrini Green.

 

[Navy1960]

Oh blah... I'm not even going to discuss this further until something is actually ON THE FLOOR and open for debate by the legislators because you people continue to believe that "universal healthcare" is what is being proposed, but it is not.

I'm sorry you feel that way Maggie, however, the result and goal is "Universal Healthcare" even if you don't like the words. I'm well aware of what is being proposed and I'm well aware of the so called "public option" !
But a government-sponsored plan would ultimately lead to a government "monopoly" over health care, some conservatives argue, thereby stripping patients of choice.

In a letter to the president Monday, nine Senate Republicans from one of the committees responsible for health care characterized this shift in care as "119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage."

"Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition," the letter says.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has led health care reform in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and introduced the bill now in play, has emphasized his support for a public option but acknowledged in a statement at the bill's release that "much work remains, and the coming days and weeks won’t be easy."
The HELP committee will begin the "mark up" process of amending the bill on Tuesday and aims to ready the bill for a full Senate vote by the second half of July.

Health Care Reform Enters Critical Phase - CBS News

Heres is another thing to ponder, as well this issue is so important why then is it being rushed? Is it perhaps that the Votes will not be there to pass it is it sits around to long and people really begin to understand it is? Perhaps the reason why people refuse to debate this matter is they see this as an issue that needs to be taken care of by the Federal Govt. and that every American deserves insurance as a "right" which they clearly do not. The fact is regardless of how this plan plays itself out, it will add an addintional 2 trillion dollars to the deficit that this country can ill afford to pay. That is money you and I will have to borrow from China to pay for healthcare than can be paid for by simply reforming the industry and not mandating health insurance. What do you think the majority of Americans are going to do when the suddenly have to pay a payroll tax on their employee sponsored health insurance to pay for health care converage for those who don't want it or are not working to pay for their own? they will opt to the public health insurance like the rest and you will end up with one insurance entity the Federal Govt. a.k.a . " Universal Healthcare" You can choose to call it any slick marketing name you wish, but it is what it is.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?

To help the insurance industry?

Or to lower "we the people's" health care insurance costs....?

If it is the latter did prices go down for your health insurance?

Because the profits certainly went up for the Insurers....

What's the constitutional authority for issuing parking tickets, or for that matter, what's the constitutional authority for starting a national health insurance program? If the government only did things that were explicitly authorized by the Constitution, there likely would be no SS or Medicare or educational programs or government loans and many fewer government taxes. There are many who would think that a good thing, but I don't believe you are one of them.

No one is talking about capping damages for the actual costs incurred, but only for intangibles such as pain and suffering. How about if instead of talking about capping damages, a law set out a schedule of awards for these damages such as so much for the pain and suffering due to the loss of the ability to walk, or so much for the loss of the ability to speak or have sex, etc.? Or do you think we should leave the amount of damages for pain and suffering up to how juries feel at the moment? Without such standards, can juries really provide equal justice, and if it's not equal justice, is it justice at all?

 

[Oddball]

the result and goal is "Universal Healthcare" even if you don't like the words. I'm well aware of what is being proposed and I'm well aware of the so called "public option" !

A pattern of socialists and their cheerleaders that started back in the 1920s, when the socialist wing of the Democrat Party stole the term "liberal" (which hencetofore meant libertarian) to obfuscate their true aims.

Just as they've sullied and debased the term liberal, to the point that they've now moved to defining themselves as "progressives", we're now getting bullshitter terms like "single-payer" and "universal coverage" to pimp for what boils down to socialized medical services.

 

[Navy1960]

I have a question and it's open to any who wish to answer it, this question is more or less based on something that comes to mind after reading Dudes last post. It would seem to me that someone who was truley "liberal" would want more freedom not less of it or am I mistaken in that assesment?

6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
liberal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Now given my impression of this, am I wrong in assuming that when one is willing to give up freedoms they are not "liberal"? This is not meant as an insullt it's more or less trying to come to grips with why would can call themselves "liberal" and yet at the same time wish for someone else to control an aspect of their lives.

 

[Care4all]

What is the constitutional authority or purpose of capping liability suits, I wonder?

To help the insurance industry?

Or to lower "we the people's" health care insurance costs....?

If it is the latter did prices go down for your health insurance?

Because the profits certainly went up for the Insurers....

What's the constitutional authority for issuing parking tickets, or for that matter, what's the constitutional authority for starting a national health insurance program? If the government only did things that were explicitly authorized by the Constitution, there likely would be no SS or Medicare or educational programs or government loans and many fewer government taxes. There are many who would think that a good thing, but I don't believe you are one of them.

No one is talking about capping damages for the actual costs incurred, but only for intangibles such as pain and suffering. How about if instead of talking about capping damages, a law set out a schedule of awards for these damages such as so much for the pain and suffering due to the loss of the ability to walk, or so much for the loss of the ability to speak or have sex, etc.? Or do you think we should leave the amount of damages for pain and suffering up to how juries feel at the moment? Without such standards, can juries really provide equal justice, and if it's not equal justice, is it justice at all?

Those are good questions....i don't know the answers to....without alot of statistics in front of me to analyze.

I am not certain those types of caps could really be determined because each case would be different...loss of ability to have sex the rest of their lives, for a 20 year old male or a 20 year old female would be different than losing the ability to have sex for a 65 year old man injured or a 65 year old woman injured, ya know? I mean the younguns lost ability to bear offspring...

I just don't think it should be done...and from all that i have seen, where the juries awarded too much, the system has corrected such, on appeals....

We have test models, in the states that did institute caps in order to reduce health care costs and it HAS NOT DONE SO....

if this truly is the case, then why allow our federal government to get involved at all?

care

 

[Oddball]

Like I said, Navy, the socialists in the Democrat Party stole the term back in prohibition era. Hayek had to coin the term "classical liberal" -i.e. libertarian- to make the distinction between the true liberals and the closet statists.

That aside, I use that as an example of how the statist needs to commandeer and fudge the language, in order to con the gullible into believing that they have the supposed best interests of the proletariat uppermost in their tiny little minds.......Somewhere out in the ether, both Orwell and Rand are giggling their asses off.

 

[Navy1960]

Texas is proof that reasonable medical liability reform can benefit medical providers and the
public alike.
• With this latest premium reduction, the Texas law will have saved doctors some $380 million in
premium costs. And that’s just for the 14,500 clients insured by this company.
• The Texas Medical Liability Trust has approved an average insurance rate cut of 4.7 percent for
2009.
• Also, the insurer will pay policyholders who renew their policy a 22.5 percent dividend.
• This will be the fourth straight year the Texas insurer has paid insureds a dividend. It’s the
largest percentage dividend ever.
Texas has seen its situation turn from one of lawyers suing recklessly to one where medical
providers can do their job without fear.
• Having access to affordable liability coverage
http://www.hlc.org/090508.pdf

Care here is a little report from Texas that proves Caps do work when instituted properly. Little food for thought.

 

[Care4all]

I have a question and it's open to any who wish to answer it, this question is more or less based on something that comes to mind after reading Dudes last post. It would seem to me that someone who was truley "liberal" would want more freedom not less of it or am I mistaken in that assesment?

6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
liberal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Now given my impression of this, am I wrong in assuming that when one is willing to give up freedoms they are not "liberal"? This is not meant as an insullt it's more or less trying to come to grips with why would can call themselves "liberal" and yet at the same time wish for someone else to control an aspect of their lives.

What health care choices or freedoms do we have now? Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?

Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here!

 

[toomuchtime_]

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?

Free markets do not decide lawsuits, judges and juries do, and they decide them on the basis of laws the government has passed, so of course the government has the right to pass another law about the extent of a litigant's rights. You have no right to sue at all except as it is established by law.

if you limit what someone can be sued for BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE, then this will become a statistical calculation of where they will count on being negligent, while still being profitable and we humans just become numbers...on whether they can afford to let us die or how many of us they can let die through their own negligence, with only having to pay the cap, the calculated risk....they will factor in negligence as an acceptable risk....and not address the actual negligence and why it happens repeatedly with some folks....

Not knowing what your monetary punishment will be, because every case does not have the same damages is part of the self governess of the free market industries....

This makes them strive for perfection, and running a business without negligence....without having government having to regulate them to the hilt imo...

Regardless of what juries award, the actuaries will calculate the probable awards the company will have to pay and weight that number towards the high end in determining what premiums to charge, thus the unpredictability you admire so much will probably result in higher premiums in the future. Lawsuits, like computers, telephones and paper clips, are a cost of doing business and that cost will always be passed on to the consumer. It's not the insurance company that pays your award, it's all the people who buy insurance from them in the future, and that is true whether it is a government insurance program or a private company.

One could also argue that the proper function of civil courts is to dispense justice, and it is the function of state medical boards and legislatures to set standards of conduct and practice. If different juries would give different awards for the same cases, then the courts are not dispensing equal justice, sometimes the plaintiff being wronged and sometimes the defendant, and justice would be a random result.

If your goal is really to improve the quality of care received, you should write to your state legislator and ask him/her to get your state medical boards to collect data on all providers and make it easily available to consumers so that if you need an angioplasty or a colonoscopy you can easily see which doctors and hospitals have the lowest incidence of mishaps. This would punish providers whose standards are lax, reward those whose standards are superior and probably improve the quality of care overall, resulting in fewer lawsuits and probably lower insurance premiums.

 

[Navy1960]

On a side note Dude, I just cannot understand and I suppose it's because i'm not part of the enlightned crowd, why anyone for any reason would willingly give up any freedom. I do believe your right though Orwell and Rand are most likely havnig a good laugh about now.. In this debate I look at this quote a lot , I don't know why, but it really has at least in my mind a lot of impact on this healthcare debate.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" B. Franklin

 

[DavidS]

HEY! What if we completely SCRAP ANY System except one the government provides...

Very true, Publis... we've seen this in history before. Like when the Post Office started offering overnight packages - they stamped out the competition and... oh hold on, FedEx is here.

Sorry about that. Yes, as I was saying. When States began offering health insurance, all private health insurance companies went out of business and... oh hold on, I forgot to pay Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Anyway, right then, as I was saying, it's a terrible thing when the government imposes regulations on private corporations! Holy shit! I just saw a huge car accident involving an SUV and a Minivan! Both were loaded with children, but because the car companies designed their cars to withstand and reduce injury likelyhood to the vehicles occupants, all of the kids are fine. Phew. As I was saying, it's absolutely terrible that the government regulates private compa... oh hold on, I just got a call from my mother that her flight arrived on time. Thank God the airlines made sure to check the airplane for any mechanical defects. Anyway, where was I? You know, all this talk has given me such a headache. I need an Advil. Thank God drug companies can't claim that a drug that's unsafe for you, is really safe.

Sorry, PubliusInfinitum, what were you saying? Oh right government intervention in our private lives is terrible. Oh, hold on, I just got a call from my father letting me know that he's coming to see me too. Thankfully, even though he's retired, he's able to afford a plane ticket because of social security and his kidneys are doing better today because of medicare.

Yes, now, where was I?

 

[Oddball]

What health care choices or freedoms do we have now? Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?

Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here!

Maybe for starters you could free yourself from the notion that "health care" means, as a matter of course, that a third party paying for services rendered is the ideal model.

 

[dilloduck]

What health care choices or freedoms do we have now? Most of us HAVE to go with the one or two insurance companies ones company provides them with....there are no choices for us now....one can not afford to go out and get ones own health care policy without their company's help now....?

Granted, the company has a choice, they can shop around for the best policy that fits their employees at the best price...but it will fall short for some and not be the policy of their choice.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here!

Maybe for starters you could free yourself from the notion that "health care" means, as a matter of course, that a third party paying for services rendered is the ideal model.

Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.

 

[Oddball]

Do you mean instead of paying premiums you put that money in an account that will accrue interest. The if you ever NEED health care, you pay for it out of that account ? Wild and crazy.

Yeah...I know....Freedom and responsibility are such batty ideas.