Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
[
Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal?
Because the discussion was about tort reform failing to lower costs. Since Massachusetts doesn't have it, there's no before-and-after comparison. The fact that they have high healthcare costs isn't relevant, as other factors can cause high health care costs. The control group is states that had high costs and employed tort reform in an attempt to control those costs.
First off, my research is just fine, thanks. I gave a sampling; I have neither the time nor the desire to spoon feed people. Frankly, mainly the time. This is an issue I've spent many, many hours looking into, both in recent times and during the primaries.
Second - and more amusingly. If 76% of states (I think your figure is a little off, but whatever, we'll go with it) - if that's that's the case and tort reformed worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because health care costs would have lowered acceptably in those states and it would be a nonissue.
Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were simply unaware rather than foolish. I apologize for my error.
To re-emphasize - if tort reform worked and over 2/3 of the states have done it, there would be no problem with health care costs. It doesn't work. It's a shiny distraction, nothing more. Pass all the tort reforms you want; I don't particularly care - but it doesn't solve the problem. As has been shown in just over 30 states - which was mentioned in one of the links I posted unless I missed one, btw.
You conveniently skipped how the Trial Lawyers out spent the Insurance Industry buy 80% and they put 76% of that money into your beloved Democrats......
[
Are you deaf, dumb and blind?? Mandatory Health Care is FAILING in Massachusetts because of cost, that's what the whole debate is about, duhhhhhhh......
No, the debate is about how to lower health care costs. As I don't support mandatory health care and think that concept approaches criminal, Massachusetts has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. We were having a discussion about tort reform. Try to stay on topic.
FONT="Palatino Linotype"]Again, "some form" Bozo, if you had really done any research on this you would know there is more needed, your not going to fix the courts in thirty + years, it's over 200 years old, LOLOLOL........[/FONT]
I've already shown the examples of states that had the same tort reform that's being pushed - you're the one who dragged other states into it, remember? The ones that have passed the tort reforms currently being pushed saw healthcare costs go up in response - and all but one saw malpractice insurance rates go up. You're being nonsensical.
No apology needed, your an ASS, plain and simple.....don't stop now!!
You're welcome to call names if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change the fact that the empirical evidence is against your claims, and that the states that have passed the tort reforms you suggest have not had positive results. I'm not a big fan "if plan A doesn't work, stick to plan A."
Tort Reform is the first step, no one is saying it is the only step.....
So what are the other steps?
And to Intense:
Anyone too busy to back up a claim is too busy to be Posting in the first place.
I did back up the claim, genius. Go back and read the thread. I'm simply not going to post every single link on the internet. Nice try, though. I note that you posted one link, and a rather questionable one at that, as it is a special interest group representing businesses that directly benefit from tort reform. Its membership consists of large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and (surprise!) insurance companies.
American Tort Reform Association - SourceWatch
As I already backed up my claim quite a bit more thoroughly and with multiple sources, I suggest you rethink your rather hypocritical statement there.
[
Are you deaf, dumb and blind?? Mandatory Health Care is FAILING in Massachusetts because of cost, that's what the whole debate is about, duhhhhhhh......
No, the debate is about how to lower health care costs. As I don't support mandatory health care and think that concept approaches criminal, Massachusetts has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. We were having a discussion about tort reform. Try to stay on topic.
I've already shown the examples of states that had the same tort reform that's being pushed - you're the one who dragged other states into it, remember? The ones that have passed the tort reforms currently being pushed saw healthcare costs go up in response - and all but one saw malpractice insurance rates go up. You're being nonsensical.
You're welcome to call names if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change the fact that the empirical evidence is against your claims, and that the states that have passed the tort reforms you suggest have not had positive results. I'm not a big fan "if plan A doesn't work, stick to plan A."
So what are the other steps?
And to Intense:
Anyone too busy to back up a claim is too busy to be Posting in the first place.
I did back up the claim, genius. Go back and read the thread. I'm simply not going to post every single link on the internet. Nice try, though. I note that you posted one link, and a rather questionable one at that, as it is a special interest group representing businesses that directly benefit from tort reform. Its membership consists of large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and (surprise!) insurance companies.
American Tort Reform Association - SourceWatch
As I already backed up my claim quite a bit more thoroughly and with multiple sources, I suggest you rethink your rather hypocritical statement there.
So what you are saying is you support the Public Option?
Look, it is real simple, our courts were designed to deliver justice for all, not to make millionaires out of the scum who suck us dry......you can continue to blame the Insurance Industry all you want, I have serious trouble with the coupon card we carry around called health insurance, but I know the last group we need running our health care is the Federal Government. When you look at the facts, across the board, outrageous lawsuits cost all of us more than the products are generally worth......
However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line.
Intense - congratulations on sharing a bunch of information regarding business-friendly states that doesn't relate to this, and for confirming what I've already said several times regarding Texas. Meanwhile, every other state that passed similar tort reform saw malpractice rates rise, those same rates rose even when actual malpractice costs went down, and in Texas personal insurance rates skyrocketed even though malpractice went down. That's been posted for you thoroughly, so please stop coming back with information that either repeats what's already been said or has no bearing.
GWV - Yes, I support a public option if done right for a number of reasons, the highest on my list being the effect on people with long-term pre-existing conditions. Currently, we've created a situation in which people with long-term illnesses (degenerative bone disease, as one example, or other situations that would prevent typical 9-to-5 employment and access to group care) - people in that situation, who need medical insurance basically to survive cannot have an income of over $900 per month (that was the figure last I checked) and still get government insurance, and they can't get private insurance period. Quite a few of those people could support themselves through various means of self-employment, online work, phone work, etc. However, many of them don't because they'd lose their insurance. Others simply hide their income in order to keep their insurance. Still others live with their partner but don't marry, because being married would put their income over the level. In all of those cases, along with the insurance, they often get disability checks - which they are not allowed to refuse, because it's part of the qualification. You get both the checks and the insurance, or you get nothing. That's completely wasteful. A public option gives those people a way to get insurance in a manner that is less costly to the state.
Beyond that, I feel that a public option acts as instant oversight for insurers who drop people illegally. We have weakened to the point of nonexistent all controls that would normally apply for accountability purposes for private insurers. Erisa loopholes provide immunity to them from many lawsuits, and standard free market controls don't apply because the consumer is not the direct purchaser. The situation we have created by limiting accountability directly and due to circumstance is a bloated, inefficient insurance system and healthcare system. We can throw out pretty words like "healthcare isn't a right" - but let's face it, we're already functioning under the assumption that at least some healthcare is a right. Emergency rooms are overused for that very reason, increasing costs greatly. We're spending the money already - we are simply spending it incredibly poorly and inefficiently.
However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line.
While I have no problem with tort reform and frankly think it's generally a good idea if done reasonably and fairly, I simply don't see it making a huge difference. It's like looking at a sinking boat, bailing out 1 teacup worth of water, and saying "there, problem solved." The boat's still sinking, and the teacup isn't the priority. The priority is fixing the gaping hole.
So, again, other than tort reform, how do you propose we address the problems we are clearly facing regarding health care in this country?
Intense - congratulations on sharing a bunch of information regarding business-friendly states that doesn't relate to this, and for confirming what I've already said several times regarding Texas. Meanwhile, every other state that passed similar tort reform saw malpractice rates rise, those same rates rose even when actual malpractice costs went down, and in Texas personal insurance rates skyrocketed even though malpractice went down.
Why is that Gudrid? Why are Insurance Rates Rising, and why is it not addressed Directly? That role does Government currently play in the Increase? What is the relationship of Unnecessary Procedures, when the alternative is Liability? When You choose a Doctor Gudrid, Are you at all interested in the Person? Should the Doctor have any say in your treatment? Should it be an Administrator? a Bureaucrat? Does it concern You if The system requires Multiple Inconveniences that for the most part may be uncompensated? Unnecessary? Denial of payment because of some bureaucratic screw up. Few things are more complicated than Tax Law, yet this is up there.
That's been posted for you thoroughly, so please stop coming back with information that either repeats what's already been said or has no bearing.
The Socialist Side of this argument has many allies. You have enough on the web, patting each others backs. AP, UP, The Networks, are behind you. It dominates the pool, which does make it more difficult research. Why not break down the cost? Show the figures of what goes where. Let's see the transparency, and Justification of how it can only be done by Government. Government could allow us to buy Insurance from where we want, with no regard to State boundaries. Malpractice Insurance can be made more affordable. Tort Reform, could remove the Get Rich Quick Scheme Perspective from the Equation. Ambulance Costs, Unnecessary use there big time. Who do the owners of these companies contribute to, to keep the costs up?
GWV - Yes, I support a public option if done right for a number of reasons, the highest on my list being the effect on people with long-term pre-existing conditions. Reform should be the Key word here. Currently, we've created a situation in which people with long-term illnesses (degenerative bone disease, as one example, or other situations that would prevent typical 9-to-5 employment and access to group care) - people in that situation, who need medical insurance basically to survive cannot have an income of over $900 per month (that was the figure last I checked) and still get government insurance, and they can't get private insurance period. Reform should be the Key word here. Quite a few of those people could support themselves through various means of self-employment, online work, phone work, etc. However, many of them don't because they'd lose their insurance. Others simply hide their income in order to keep their insurance. Still others live with their partner but don't marry, because being married would put their income over the level. Reform should be the Key word here. In all of those cases, along with the insurance, they often get disability checks - which they are not allowed to refuse, because it's part of the qualification. You get both the checks and the insurance, or you get nothing. That's completely wasteful. A public option gives those people a way to get insurance in a manner that is less costly to the state. Reform should be the Key word here.
Beyond that, I feel that a public option acts as instant oversight for insurers who drop people illegally. We have weakened to the point of nonexistent all controls that would normally apply for accountability purposes for private insurers. Erisa loopholes provide immunity to them from many lawsuits, and standard free market controls don't apply because the consumer is not the direct purchaser. The situation we have created by limiting accountability directly and due to circumstance is a bloated, inefficient insurance system and healthcare system. We can throw out pretty words like "healthcare isn't a right" - but let's face it, we're already functioning under the assumption that at least some healthcare is a right. Emergency rooms are overused for that very reason, increasing costs greatly. We're spending the money already - we are simply spending it incredibly poorly and inefficiently.
However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line. I'm in total agreement here, it is my main concern. It will serve as an added tax to low end Self Employed, already struggling to get by.
While I have no problem with tort reform and frankly think it's generally a good idea if done reasonably and fairly, I simply don't see it making a huge difference. It's like looking at a sinking boat, bailing out 1 teacup worth of water, and saying "there, problem solved." The boat's still sinking, and the teacup isn't the priority. The priority is fixing the gaping hole.
So, again, other than tort reform, how do you propose we address the problems we are clearly facing regarding health care in this country?
The French healthcare system is the best in the world.
They limit doctor liability and their medical schools are free.
So they have many more doctors per capita than we do, and their healthcare costs are half as much per capita. Their system works and is cheaper, so why don't we copy it?
Second to Tort Reform you remove exclusions from Pre Existing Conditions
, and if some one as you described needed more government assistance you raise what they can earn, $900 a month is too low, done, problem solved.....
.....when you consider a Government Option, call it what it is, your going to be paying for the lazy who have never had any intention of paying for their own, they will never legislate anything that stops that....
Problem is your description is the minority of people and you want to turn it over to a government that buys $450 hammers,
..you don't turn everything upside down to take care of a minority, you fix that problem specifically, we turn issues like this into a multi faceted array of things and forget what got us here in the first place.....
The tea cup analogy is over simplifying the problem, as I stated before you have lawyers / law firms contributing nearly a quarter billion dollars in campaign contributions in one year, their eyes are on that $150 to $200 billion a year in malpractice premiums, if that wasn't the case they could spend 80% less, but they don't......[/quote[
The tea cup analogy is illustrating what the empirical evidence has shown. And despite the figures posted earlier, the healthcare industry has contributed quite a bit more than trial lawyers, if you want to take the follow-the-money route. Open secrets tracks that sort of thing and is a very organized site, if you want to take a look. You can see trial lawyers contributions by association or individuals, and same for the healthcare industry. The figures you read and posted earlier included the contributions of only one segment of the healthcare industry and didn't even include the AMA.
Last issue, Texas health care premiums are in line with all states, no one is getting any major discount living in one of the 12 states that have done nothing about Tort Reform.....
Texas premiums are among the highest in the nation - I linked you to that information in the post-full-o-links from earlier, but it was a lot at once. They also have the highest rate of uninsured in the nation. Texas Has Nationâs Highest Rate of People without Health Insurance
Beyond that, of course no one is getting any major discount living in the states that have no tort reform. I never claimed malpractice laws as they stand save money; I said it has virtually no effect on costs. And it doesn't. If it did, then Texas health care premiums would be lower than other states rather than in line with other states.
I understand where you're coming from in one sense and why the concept of making a public option available in a capitalist society "feels" wrong. At the same time, I consider a healthcare safety net every bit as valid a social program as public schools, police, and fire protection. The way we're doing it now simply doesn't work.
Why is that Gudrid? Why are Insurance Rates Rising, and why is it not addressed Directly? That role does Government currently play in the Increase? What is the relationship of Unnecessary Procedures, when the alternative is Liability? When You choose a Doctor Gudrid, Are you at all interested in the Person? Should the Doctor have any say in your treatment? Should it be an Administrator? a Bureaucrat? Does it concern You if The system requires Multiple Inconveniences that for the most part may be uncompensated? Unnecessary? Denial of payment because of some bureaucratic screw up. Few things are more complicated than Tax Law, yet this is up there.
The Socialist Side of this argument has many allies.
What we don't need is the Government Mafia taking over something that it had every part in screwing up.
Second to Tort Reform you remove exclusions from Pre Existing Conditions
If you're talking about a legal requirement that the insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, then that I disagree with. I think that path leads to the insurance companies doing the same thing they've done with malpractice - using it as an excuse for price gouging, whining that covering these people is too expensive and that's why they had to raise rates beyond what's needed. Then everyone suffers more under the burden of higher healthcare insurance - particularly employers - and cries out for relief. At which point, since the public option has been shot down at that point, the government ends up subsidizing and sending our tax money directly to private insurers. And the money gets spent in the manner least likely to benefit the public.
Let me re classify this, lets call it Pre Existing Non Catastrophic, it is a burden on all of us when you have this patient uninsured, we rate the premiums for a driver based on their record, this is controlled on a state level, the same can be done with health insurance, some how we make it out to be the evil insurance company, our government rights the rules for how they conduct business, letting the government compete is a cop out, do what is best for the people, not the lawyers, not the hospitals and certainly not what is best for the politicians.....
, and if some one as you described needed more government assistance you raise what they can earn, $900 a month is too low, done, problem solved.....
You've just described a major component of the public option.
How is that? Subsidies? They do not solve the problem.....
So let me tell you some more about private insurance. A single woman is not generally covered for pregnancy. A married woman who gets a private plan is not covered for pregnancy during the first year of coverage. Meaning, if she gets pregnant any time in that year.
You are discussing this with someone who paid cash for our first child, nobody else was responsible for this pregnancy but me and my wife, we didn't expect someone else to pay for our responsibility........
I'll be paying less for them than I am now. The current system basically hands free health insurance to three groups: retirees, those who are honestly unable to make a living due to being disabled or other valid circumstances, and those who have low incomes because they're lazy. It is the able bodied, working, non-lazy who are penalized under the current system.
As long as we allow this mentality to exist, you and I will be paying for this group no matter what program is implemented, we are developing a socialist mentality, when we need to find ways to make these less fortunate more responsible citizens, carrying them is not the answer for long term solutions and forcing a society to do such is the food for reveloutions......
The government sucks, but its the only government we've got. And I certainly feel the government is more accountable to the people than private interests. The ones denying treatment to customers while decorating their lobbies with half million dollar sculptures - which are even less efficient as $450 hammers. If the private insurers had shown themselves to be more efficient than that government, then maybe I could see that argument. But they've shown themselves to be bloated, inefficient, and shady. The government, for all its faults, has done a better job with medical coverage than the private insurers - for those who qualify. I think that option should be open to all. And it this point, there's more accountability in government than in private insurance, sad as that is.
Yes the government sucks, but it is not the only government we've got, no, it is the government we have allowed, this is nothing more than a excuse to let them become much, much worse......again, it is the governments responsibility to make sure we have governing rules that protect our interest, and to date they have failed, so your reasoning is just let them run it????? Makes no sense, my 11 year old could make better decisions.....So you believe Medicare is efficient? The VA is efficient? Granted I have a hard time with the abuse of corporate America, but I have been involved with it most of my adult life and they have been for the most part responsible participants, I can find bad in everything, like a Congressman or Senator who receives full retirement benefits after serving only five years, yet these are the same people who we elect, as for a private sector executives, most have climbed the corporate ladder thru some real effort, politicians on the other hand, I'll stop there.......
We're all being price gouged.
Yes we are, and it has gone on sense the beginning of time, this is the best example I have for the problem with lawyers and accountants, the average American loses more every day....
The tea cup analogy is over simplifying the problem, as I stated before you have lawyers / law firms contributing nearly a quarter billion dollars in campaign contributions in one year, their eyes are on that $150 to $200 billion a year in malpractice premiums, if that wasn't the case they could spend 80% less, but they don't......[/quote[
The tea cup analogy is illustrating what the empirical evidence has shown. And despite the figures posted earlier, the healthcare industry has contributed quite a bit more than trial lawyers, if you want to take the follow-the-money route. Open secrets tracks that sort of thing and is a very organized site, if you want to take a look. You can see trial lawyers contributions by association or individuals, and same for the healthcare industry. The figures you read and posted earlier included the contributions of only one segment of the healthcare industry and didn't even include the AMA.
Yes, Open Secrets is who I used the figures from for Lawyers vs Insurance political contributions, and in the 2008 campaign cycle $29,175,189 was contributed from the Pharmaceutical / Health Industries, yet again well short of the $233,941,857 from Lawyers / Law Firms for the same period.......the old saying is correct, we are better off with them at the bottom of the ocean......[/SIZE]
Last issue, Texas health care premiums are in line with all states, no one is getting any major discount living in one of the 12 states that have done nothing about Tort Reform.....
Texas premiums are among the highest in the nation - I linked you to that information in the post-full-o-links from earlier, but it was a lot at once. They also have the highest rate of uninsured in the nation. Texas Has Nation’s Highest Rate of People without Health Insurance
Yes we have the highest amount un insured, that can also be contributed to illegals, but we are in line with the rest of the nation when it comes to premiums, you are looking at the second largest state population wise with 24+ million......Texas also has one of the most robust economies, job growth over the past decade is second to none.....
Beyond that, of course no one is getting any major discount living in the states that have no tort reform. I never claimed malpractice laws as they stand save money; I said it has virtually no effect on costs. And it doesn't. If it did, then Texas health care premiums would be lower than other states rather than in line with other states.
It helps control the cost, we ALL pay for higher malpractice, just as we pay for theft or anything else that effects the overall cost of any product, it is reality, plain and simple.....
I understand where you're coming from in one sense and why the concept of making a public option available in a capitalist society "feels" wrong. At the same time, I consider a healthcare safety net every bit as valid a social program as public schools, police, and fire protection. The way we're doing it now simply doesn't work.
We have a safety net for the uninsureded and or underprivileged and yes this is a capitalisticic society, it is the single largest reason we have what we have today, we become a follower instead of a leader with the plan Obama wants and we clearly know the problems that come with socialized medicine....we have the best quality of healthcare in the world today, don't be fooled with the WHO statistics......you have to ask your self, why are we going to settle for this?????
