Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Annie, Aug 13, 2009.
Not on destroying what we have:
John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com
I need to shop there more often, I like that guy.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
In other words: "We can solve the health care problem if people just buy my over-priced "organic" produce".
Whole Foods has got to be sweating. In a rough economy, luxury items are the first to go.
So is it the 'fail' that is wrong? Or is it that you are for costs being passed on so trial lawyers get rich?
You'd think, with all the debt we're in, that the government would try the least costly fixes first before attempting what will no doubt become a mammothly exorbitant government-run fubar.
Hot buttons there eh? Rich lawyers. You know rich lawyers are the ones that own the firm don't you? Anyway back to the issue.
Tort reform is a con. It was done in my country by insurance companies who conned the federal government and some state governments and some of the citizenry to protect their profits because of failed international investments. Poor bastards, down to their last billions.
One of the problems I have with so-called 'tort reform' is that individual rights will be attacked.
The tort of negligence is useful because it means that we - all of us - will be careful about how we deal with each other.
Knowing that being negligent towards someone else could cost us big money is an incentive to be careful.
I want my doctor or surgeon or my lawyer for that matter to be aware that if they are negligent towards me then I will sue for negligence and I will expect compensation and I expect the court to award punitary damages to encourage the others.
I don't care if those professionals buy insurance to lay off their potential exposure like a bookie lays off bets. Domestic insurance companies lay off with the big re companies anyway, so it's all a bit like a normal day at Agua Caliente.
Tort reform is government sucking up to big insurance companies at the expense of little people like me.
Sorry. Even when there is actual malpractice, tangential payments are wrong; as the family is enriched, not the individual. If the costs of caring for someone, give it in the original judgement.
Now if a profession was so recklessly negligent, there are criminal charges that can be brought, then we don't need to worry about them repeating the behavior.
The source is suspect. He may be a nice guy, but the fact is, our food supply is controlled by a very few mega corps [just like insurance] and the nice organic labels mean next to nothing. I think you would be surprised if you knew just how huge these corporations were and how much control they have over what we eat and what we can buy.
And these corporations are scared because if the public option or UHC gets passed they will be in the crosshairs because diet is one of the first things that will be addressed and it is widely known that GM foods and additives are not contributing to the overall wellbeing of anybody other than stockholders of huge nasty corporations.
Negligence should be compensated. Professionals might want to risk manage by using insurance companies, that's fair enough, but negligence should be compensated. Disciplinary action against an incompetent professional is another thing entirely. I look at the tort of negligence as being a deterrent, water it down and watch what happens.
Separate names with a comma.