The debate on health care does not need to be this complicated

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The Democraps are taking health care reform much further than just plain old reform that the health care industry needs. They are attempting a power grap in addition to the health care reform. They want the government to have control over every aspect of your life.

 

[VaYank5150]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

Did you write this all by yourself?

 

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

Did you write this all by yourself?

Yes, and if you have any ideas that won't end up bankrupting the country, please contribute.

 

[logical4u]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I would add:
Tax breaks for individuals purchasing healthcare insurance that is similar to the breaks businesses get (people buying their own would increase the competition in the marketplace).

Unfortunately, the members of congress seem to be more concerned with taking our rights than doing anything to actually help citizens.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I agree with everything here, except tort reform.

My opinions on tort reform are similar to what I hear from a lot of people in regards to the second amendment. For the same reasons the NRA fights any sort of gun control, be it limitations on personal ownership of rocket launchers, I feel that any legislation that removes people's rights to sue is a slippery slope, that could very soon lead to abuse.

Now, I'm not talking about the current bill, but what are your oppositions to a public option? Competitively priced low-cost insurance that will cover more than current high-deductable insurance, and be available to people who are mandated to have coverage?

 

[VaYank5150]

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

Do you have any idea how many state laws or mandates would have to be stricken in order for this to happen? These same state mandates do nothing but escalate health insurance costs. However, last I checked, a piece of Federal legislation does not override state legislation.

 

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I would add:
Tax breaks for individuals purchasing healthcare insurance that is similar to the breaks businesses get (people buying their own would increase the competition in the marketplace).

Unfortunately, the members of congress seem to be more concerned with taking our rights than doing anything to actually help citizens.

Great idea- incentivise people with tax breaks!!!!!

 

[Maple]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I agree with everything here, except tort reform.

My opinions on tort reform are similar to what I hear from a lot of people in regards to the second amendment. For the same reasons the NRA fights any sort of gun control, be it limitations on personal ownership of rocket launchers, I feel that any legislation that removes people's rights to sue is a slippery slope, that could very soon lead to abuse.

Now, I'm not talking about the current bill, but what are your oppositions to a public option? Competitively priced low-cost insurance that will cover more than current high-deductable insurance, and be available to people who are mandated to have coverage?

Tort reform- takes no one rights away to sue, there would be a limit imposed on the amount of compensation. Frivoulous lawsuits of which cost millions a year could be discouraged if the person who loses the case pays for ALL court costs and attorney fees.

My opposition to the public option is that the government already runs social security, medicare, medicaid, frannie and freddie, the postal service and all are bankrupt. There track record of running any program is dismal at best.

The public option as written in HR3200 would penalize business's with an 8% payroll tax. Many business's already pay more than that now for coverage for their employees. As it is written now, it would be an incentive for business to dump the coverage on their employees and essentially force everyone onto a government run plan.

 

[Maple]

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

Do you have any idea how many state laws or mandates would have to be stricken in order for this to happen? These same state mandates do nothing but escalate health insurance costs. However, last I checked, a piece of Federal legislation does not override state legislation.

Really, do you know how much a nationalised plan that you propose would cost??? It is estimated now that it would cost app 1 trillion dollars , now when you consider that medicare in 1990 was estimated to only be 90 billion and it is 10 times that amount now,I would think that fact would give you pause before you turn over another 6% of our economy to a bunch who have a track record of bankrupting anything and everything they touch.

As far as state rights and the feds overriding them. Beleive me, when you start denying highway dollars to them when they don't comply, they seem to change their tune right away.

 

[VaYank5150]

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

Do you have any idea how many state laws or mandates would have to be stricken in order for this to happen? These same state mandates do nothing but escalate health insurance costs. However, last I checked, a piece of Federal legislation does not override state legislation.

Really, do you know how much a nationalised plan that you propose would cost??? It is estimated now that it would cost app 1 trillion dollars , now when you consider that medicare in 1990 was estimated to only be 90 billion and it is 10 times that amount now,I would think that fact would give you pause before you turn over another 6% of our economy to a bunch who have a track record of bankrupting anything and everything they touch.

As far as state rights and the feds overriding them. Beleive me, when you start denying highway dollars to them when they don't comply, they seem to change their tune right away.

I don't agree with everything you say, but this part is SPOT ON. Good show!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Everyone knows that the health care INSURANCE needs reform. But a national take over with the public option or co-ops is just not necessary, both would cost the taxpayer and run up our debt astronomically. Both plans are approaching 1 trillion dollars. You can bet that's a low ball estimate.

Now they are debating a bi-partisan bill in the senate and they are already fighting over making it mandatory that everyone purchase a health insurance plan. If a family of 4 opts out of buying their own insurance they will be fined $3,800 a year.

Better solution.

1. Tort reform- the cost of mal-practice insurance has increased 1400% over the past years. 85% of physicians in states where there is no tort reform practice defensive medicine. On average a physician pays 100,000 per year for mal-practive insurance, these costs are passed back onto us, the consumer, in the form of higher fees for service. All this would do is put a limit on compensation.

2. Open competition- you should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines, there is no reason that an insurance company locks up one state. Competition drives costs down. You should be able to pick and choose your plan as easily as you do your car insurance.

3. Mandatory- if you are not covered you should be required to purchase an individual high deductible major medical plan. These plans are inexpensive but they cover catastrophic losses. It is estimated that 15 million people can afford health insurance but they choose not to purchase it. They end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. The poor can be subsidized.

4. Group- small business- Small business employs 76% of Americans but there is no plan that they can join. They are forced to either not cover their employess or pay outrageous premiums for coverage. Most choose not to cover.

5. Pre-tax health savings plans- these are pre-tax dollars that can be set up in cafeteria plans, for people that are not covered by their employer, but have an individual major medical plan. They can use it for doctor's office visits, medications, dental visits etc. At the end of the year should they have money left in that account they can keep it and spend it on what they want.

6. Pass legislation requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and legislation that should you lose your job, you can be covered under you old plan for a specidied amount of time, enabling you the time to pick the castastrophic plan that best fits your needs. Car insurance covers you for a specified amount of time should you forget to renew, why not, health insurance.

Health insurance is important to all of us, I just don't see why it needs to be so complicated, this can all be done through legislation.

I agree with everything here, except tort reform.

My opinions on tort reform are similar to what I hear from a lot of people in regards to the second amendment. For the same reasons the NRA fights any sort of gun control, be it limitations on personal ownership of rocket launchers, I feel that any legislation that removes people's rights to sue is a slippery slope, that could very soon lead to abuse.

Now, I'm not talking about the current bill, but what are your oppositions to a public option? Competitively priced low-cost insurance that will cover more than current high-deductable insurance, and be available to people who are mandated to have coverage?

Tort reform- takes no one rights away to sue, there would be a limit imposed on the amount of compensation. Frivoulous lawsuits of which cost millions a year could be discouraged if the person who loses the case pays for ALL court costs and attorney fees.

And gun registration laws don't take away people's rights to own guns. The same arguments you hear from the NRA about the 2nd amendment are my arguments about tort reform, at least in the context of how it's been discussed re: healthcare prices.

My opposition to the public option is that the government already runs social security, medicare, medicaid, frannie and freddie, the postal service and all are bankrupt. There track record of running any program is dismal at best.

I feel like the people who's lives are saved by medicare and medicaid would probably disagree with you on the effectiveness of those programs. Also - what about the Military? Police departments? Fire departments? The government seems to be running those pretty well.

The public option as written in HR3200 would penalize business's with an 8% payroll tax. Many business's already pay more than that now for coverage for their employees. As it is written now, it would be an incentive for business to dump the coverage on their employees and essentially force everyone onto a government run plan.

As I said, I'm no fan of HR3200 either - I was asking from more of a theoretical standpoint, rather than criticism of the bill itself.

 

[Maple]

I agree with everything here, except tort reform.

My opinions on tort reform are similar to what I hear from a lot of people in regards to the second amendment. For the same reasons the NRA fights any sort of gun control, be it limitations on personal ownership of rocket launchers, I feel that any legislation that removes people's rights to sue is a slippery slope, that could very soon lead to abuse.

Now, I'm not talking about the current bill, but what are your oppositions to a public option? Competitively priced low-cost insurance that will cover more than current high-deductable insurance, and be available to people who are mandated to have coverage?

Tort reform- takes no one rights away to sue, there would be a limit imposed on the amount of compensation. Frivoulous lawsuits of which cost millions a year could be discouraged if the person who loses the case pays for ALL court costs and attorney fees.

And gun registration laws don't take away people's rights to own guns. The same arguments you hear from the NRA about the 2nd amendment are my arguments about tort reform, at least in the context of how it's been discussed re: healthcare prices.

My opposition to the public option is that the government already runs social security, medicare, medicaid, frannie and freddie, the postal service and all are bankrupt. There track record of running any program is dismal at best.

I feel like the people who's lives are saved by medicare and medicaid would probably disagree with you on the effectiveness of those programs. Also - what about the Military? Police departments? Fire departments? The government seems to be running those pretty well.

The public option as written in HR3200 would penalize business's with an 8% payroll tax. Many business's already pay more than that now for coverage for their employees. As it is written now, it would be an incentive for business to dump the coverage on their employees and essentially force everyone onto a government run plan.

As I said, I'm no fan of HR3200 either - I was asking from more of a theoretical standpoint, rather than criticism of the bill itself.

I do not at all see your point about gun registration, and as for as medicare and medicaid go, it is estimated that .20 on every dollar spent is fraudulent, clean that up, do the tort reform where physicians don't feel the need to practice defensive medicine and you will see quite a savings.

I did not ever say that medicare and medicaid should be eliminated, because it never will be, they are just costing this country more and more money and that cost should be controlled with cost controlled measures.Tort reform and eliminating the fraud and abuse that goes on with these programs would be quite a cost savings. As it stands now they are unfunded mandates, meaning we are borrowing money and adding to the deficit to pay for them.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I do not at all see your point about gun registration, and as for as medicare and medicaid go, it is estimated that .20 on every dollar spent is fraudulent, clean that up, do the tort reform where physicians don't feel the need to practice defensive medicine and you will see quite a savings.

I simply do not understand how defensive medicine became the bad guy. Is it such a bad idea for a Doctor to do the work to cover his bases and make sure he made the right diagnosis? For example, the idiot doctor that treated my Dad at the end misdiagnosed a stroke as clinical depression. It might not have killed him, but it certainly delayed treatments that could have prevented the second stroke that did kill him.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Tort reform- takes no one rights away to sue, there would be a limit imposed on the amount of compensation. Frivoulous lawsuits of which cost millions a year could be discouraged if the person who loses the case pays for ALL court costs and attorney fees.

And gun registration laws don't take away people's rights to own guns. The same arguments you hear from the NRA about the 2nd amendment are my arguments about tort reform, at least in the context of how it's been discussed re: healthcare prices.

I feel like the people who's lives are saved by medicare and medicaid would probably disagree with you on the effectiveness of those programs. Also - what about the Military? Police departments? Fire departments? The government seems to be running those pretty well.

The public option as written in HR3200 would penalize business's with an 8% payroll tax. Many business's already pay more than that now for coverage for their employees. As it is written now, it would be an incentive for business to dump the coverage on their employees and essentially force everyone onto a government run plan.

As I said, I'm no fan of HR3200 either - I was asking from more of a theoretical standpoint, rather than criticism of the bill itself.

I do not at all see your point about gun registration, and as for as medicare and medicaid go, it is estimated that .20 on every dollar spent is fraudulent, clean that up, do the tort reform where physicians don't feel the need to practice defensive medicine and you will see quite a savings.

There's just as much fraud in private insurance. Fraud will always happen, and for every program to stop fraud, people will find 20 brand new ways to defraud. Cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" is just political rhetoric - if it was as easy to cut fraud and abuse as just saying it, it would have happened a long time ago. Can you sight any actual ideas on how to cut this fraud?

I did not ever say that medicare and medicaid should be eliminated, because it never will be, they are just costing this country more and more money and that cost should be controlled with cost controlled measures.Tort reform and eliminating the fraud and abuse that goes on with these programs would be quite a cost savings. As it stands now they are unfunded mandates, meaning we are borrowing money and adding to the deficit to pay for them.

Once again, I agree with you in principle, but in reality it's not as easy as the rhetoric makes it sound.

 

[Maple]

I do not at all see your point about gun registration, and as for as medicare and medicaid go, it is estimated that .20 on every dollar spent is fraudulent, clean that up, do the tort reform where physicians don't feel the need to practice defensive medicine and you will see quite a savings.

I simply do not understand how defensive medicine became the bad guy. Is it such a bad idea for a Doctor to do the work to cover his bases and make sure he made the right diagnosis? For example, the idiot doctor that treated my Dad at the end misdiagnosed a stroke as clinical depression. It might not have killed him, but it certainly delayed treatments that could have prevented the second stroke that did kill him.

What the problem is with defensive medicine, is that doctors who are 98% sure of their diagnosis will run the same very expensive test on the same person to make sure they have covered all their bases and have all the documentation there to prove it, should they be sued. This runs the health care costs of medicare through the roof.

I am sorry about your dad. There are bad doctors out there and good ones, no one is immune from making a mistake. All I am saying is that the compensation for these lawsuits drives up the costs of medical mal practice insurance, which is passed back onto us in the form of higher fees for service, that combined with the defensive medicine practice contributes to app 380 billion dollars of our health care costs. Until we get these costs under control there won't be any control on costs. Tort reform entails a limit on compensation on personal injury suits. In other words, instead of getting 50 million for pain and suffering you might just get 2 million. Again, I am sorry about your dad, that's a difficult loss and it sounds like one that could have been prevented.

 

[Contumacious]

The debate on health care does not need to be this complicated

No it doesn't. Remove all federal and state restrictions and get the fuck out of the way.


Medical Control, Medical Corruption

The American Medical Association, which for almost 150 years has sought to institutionalize a rip-off and to keep sick people and their families oblivious to it. Thanks to this central committee of the medical cartel, the number of medical schools and medical students is drastically restricted, state licensure further obstructs the supply of doctors, fees are largely secret and controlled across the industry, alternative treatments and practitioners are outlawed, pharmacists and nurses are hamstrung, and the mystique of the profession rivals the priesthood, although priests have a somewhat lower income. Meanwhile, the customer pays through the nose, even if he does not go to an otolaryngologist.

 

[Maple]

And gun registration laws don't take away people's rights to own guns. The same arguments you hear from the NRA about the 2nd amendment are my arguments about tort reform, at least in the context of how it's been discussed re: healthcare prices.

I feel like the people who's lives are saved by medicare and medicaid would probably disagree with you on the effectiveness of those programs. Also - what about the Military? Police departments? Fire departments? The government seems to be running those pretty well.

As I said, I'm no fan of HR3200 either - I was asking from more of a theoretical standpoint, rather than criticism of the bill itself.

I do not at all see your point about gun registration, and as for as medicare and medicaid go, it is estimated that .20 on every dollar spent is fraudulent, clean that up, do the tort reform where physicians don't feel the need to practice defensive medicine and you will see quite a savings.

There's just as much fraud in private insurance. Fraud will always happen, and for every program to stop fraud, people will find 20 brand new ways to defraud. Cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" is just political rhetoric - if it was as easy to cut fraud and abuse as just saying it, it would have happened a long time ago. Can you sight any actual ideas on how to cut this fraud?

I did not ever say that medicare and medicaid should be eliminated, because it never will be, they are just costing this country more and more money and that cost should be controlled with cost controlled measures.Tort reform and eliminating the fraud and abuse that goes on with these programs would be quite a cost savings. As it stands now they are unfunded mandates, meaning we are borrowing money and adding to the deficit to pay for them.

Once again, I agree with you in principle, but in reality it's not as easy as the rhetoric makes it sound.

Yes, I can, oversight. Not government oversight, but private oversight. Opening competition is another fight against fraud, regular and frequent unannounced audits, by individual auditors. Enforcing the laws against fraud that are on the books now and instead of getting to go to the white collar prison, where there are tennis courts, 3 meals a day cooked by a professional chef, you get to go to the one, where you are going to need soap on a rope. I think that would help discourage the fraud and abuse that we have all witnessed.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Nice job! I agree with most of what you posted. More Government oversight when dealing with insurance companies would be ok with me. I think that's a fair compromise. There needs to be much more competition in health care. Monopolies never work out well for the consumer. We can't turn everything over to the Government either though. Just trading one monopoly for another isn't a realistic solution either. Are people really going to be happy with being put on never-ending waiting lists for their Government health care? Despite what Leftist loons like Michael Moore say,extremely long waiting lists are quite common in countries who have Socialized Medicine. So total Government control in a non-starter for me.

I also don't believe that businesses large or small should be required to provide health care for their employees. Why is your health care their responsibility? They provide you with an income to support your family and that should be enough. Your health care really is your own responsibility. I think this has been one critical flaw in the whole health care issue. If you can't afford health care than there are many Government welfare programs that you can apply for. If you do truly meet the requirements then you can be provided with temporary Government health care. A massive Government takeover really isn't necessary. Competition really is the key in the end as far as i'm concerned. Competition just doesn't exist in heath care currently. So more Capitalism not less is the answer in the end. Compromises have to be made by both sides though and i think that will happen. Thanks for your great post.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I do not at all see your point about gun registration, and as for as medicare and medicaid go, it is estimated that .20 on every dollar spent is fraudulent, clean that up, do the tort reform where physicians don't feel the need to practice defensive medicine and you will see quite a savings.

There's just as much fraud in private insurance. Fraud will always happen, and for every program to stop fraud, people will find 20 brand new ways to defraud. Cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" is just political rhetoric - if it was as easy to cut fraud and abuse as just saying it, it would have happened a long time ago. Can you sight any actual ideas on how to cut this fraud?

I did not ever say that medicare and medicaid should be eliminated, because it never will be, they are just costing this country more and more money and that cost should be controlled with cost controlled measures.Tort reform and eliminating the fraud and abuse that goes on with these programs would be quite a cost savings. As it stands now they are unfunded mandates, meaning we are borrowing money and adding to the deficit to pay for them.

Once again, I agree with you in principle, but in reality it's not as easy as the rhetoric makes it sound.

Yes, I can, oversight. Not government oversight, but private oversight. Opening competition is another fight against fraud, regular and frequent unannounced audits, by individual auditors. Enforcing the laws against fraud that are on the books now and instead of getting to go to the white collar prison, where there are tennis courts, 3 meals a day cooked by a professional chef, you get to go to the one, where you are going to need soap on a rope. I think that would help discourage the fraud and abuse that we have all witnessed.

I think this is the point where we'll have to agree to disagree - I think private auditors and frequent unannounced audits won't go very far to lessen fraud, and will end up costing much more than saving. Politicians have been promising to "crack down on medicare fraud" for about as long as medicare has existed - but it's only ever gotten worse.

I agree wholeheartedly about white collar prisons though.