ZEROcare: Step one to Single Payer Socialism

[francoHFW]

No. You get slow mediocre care --- and only if the gov't approves it. You just don't know any better because you have never had free market care to compare it to...

Here you have the insurance company deciding if you get care or not, and it costs much more than single payer. BTW, you don't wait long for critical treatment in those countries. It's a favorite talking point for those who prefer the healthcare we currently have.

That isn't true either. Insurance companies don't decide --- you decide what coverage you want and then PURCHASE it from the insurance company...

As for critical treatment --- true --- but who decides what "critical treatment" is? The patient? (that's how it works with our health care) --- The gov't decides what qualifies for "critical treatment" in commie-care systems!

bs

 

[ScienceRocks]

One way to get the doctors to work within a single payer system is to lower taxes for doctors. Maybe down to 10%? is my suggestion. Or maybe we could Give them special benefits just for doctors, etc. This way we have a system that's far less costly for the little guy, but the doctor benefits and wants to practice. Makes it worth their time.

What do you think?

 

[Obamanation]

One way to get the doctors to work within a single payer system is to lower taxes for doctors. Maybe down to 10%? is my suggestion. Or maybe we could Give them special benefits just for doctors, etc. This way we have a system that's far less costly for the little guy, but the doctor benefits and wants to practice. Makes it worth their time.

What do you think?

...but, why pay doctors when you can get nurse practitioners, midwives, and PAs to do the work for less than half the cost? I mean that's what the euro setup is. They don't care if the practitioners are highly qualified or not. It isn't about quality it's about quantity.

We all have to be willing to give up good care to ensure that everyone gets the same care.

Sad thing is that with all liberal policy - it's the middle class who suffers. We end up getting the same care as the poor - we just have to pay more money for it. The rich will continue to pay for the best care in the world as $1200 per month to them has the same financial impact as $600 (soon to be $800) per month.

 

[Flopper]

Why does most of the world come here for cancer treatment, etc? We seem to ******* rule in innovation and research.

Although we have had a mediocre healthcare system for most American, we have one the best systems for the wealthy. I think we top all other nations in healthcare research and innovation. We just do a lousy job of delivering to our people.

Compared to what?

Again, without an apple to apple comparative study you are just babbling BS...

People with a HA can walk in off the street, get a CT with results in 30 minutes along with treatment... and never pay a penny... Anywhere else in the world you will be given an appointment for sometimes weeks later... a lot of good that does ya!

So you have nothing to offer but BS. Claims with nothing to back it up.

 

[Obamanation]

Although we have had a mediocre healthcare system for most American, we have one the best systems for the wealthy. I think we top all other nations in healthcare research and innovation. We just do a lousy job of delivering to our people.

Compared to what?

Again, without an apple to apple comparative study you are just babbling BS...

People with a HA can walk in off the street, get a CT with results in 30 minutes along with treatment... and never pay a penny... Anywhere else in the world you will be given an appointment for sometimes weeks later... a lot of good that does ya!

So you have nothing to offer but BS. Claims with nothing to back it up.

lol --- are you serious? What claims are you doubting? hahaha!!!

omg - smh

Are you doubting the 22 y/o girl who came into my ER tonight with a HA and no insurance who was taken care of and sent home in relief?

or, are you doubting that that other countries will only admit you to the ER if your ailment qualifies you???

Just unbelievable!

 

[daveman]

One way to get the doctors to work within a single payer system is to lower taxes for doctors. Maybe down to 10%? is my suggestion. Or maybe we could Give them special benefits just for doctors, etc. This way we have a system that's far less costly for the little guy, but the doctor benefits and wants to practice. Makes it worth their time.

What do you think?

I think that wouldn't begin to cover the cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums, which have driven many practices to close or stop offering services such as childbirth.

Tort reform is a necessity. But the Trial Lawyer's Association will never let Democrats do anything about it.

Because Democrats don't really give a shit about helping people, do they?

 

[Greenbeard]

Tort reform is a necessity. But the Trial Lawyer's Association will never let Democrats do anything about it.

Because Democrats don't really give a shit about helping people, do they?

The Democrats included tort reform language from two GOP bills (including Paul Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation) in the ACA. It's state-based, federalism-approved tort reform that seeks to promote state-level innovation instead of federalizing tort law.

Unfortunately the GOP House hasn't gotten around to funding the tort reform piece of the law yet. I'm sure that's next on their list.

 

[daveman]

Tort reform is a necessity. But the Trial Lawyer's Association will never let Democrats do anything about it.

Because Democrats don't really give a shit about helping people, do they?

The Democrats included tort reform language from two GOP bills (including Paul Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation) in the ACA. It's state-based, federalism-approved tort reform that seeks to promote state-level innovation instead of federalizing tort law.

Unfortunately the GOP House hasn't gotten around to funding the tort reform piece of the law yet. I'm sure that's next on their list.

Yeah, just as soon as Harry Reid releases the stack of House bills he's had sitting on his desk for years.

Oh, did you really think you held the moral high ground here?

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah, just as soon as Harry Reid releases the stack of House bills he's had sitting on his desk for years.

They're holding hostage their own tort reform provisions (already passed into law by the Democrats) to punish Harry Reid?

Boy, the Republicans don't really give a shit about helping people, do they? Or maybe tort reform isn't that important. Who knows.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, just as soon as Harry Reid releases the stack of House bills he's had sitting on his desk for years.

They're holding hostage their own tort reform provisions (already passed into law by the Democrats) to punish Harry Reid?

Boy, the Republicans don't really give a shit about helping people, do they? Or maybe tort reform isn't that important. Who knows.

I sure would like to see a credible link. Key word: Credible.

 

[Greenbeard]

I sure would like to see a credible link. Key word: Credible.

To what? The approps bills that don't include the funds to support tort reform in states?

 

[daveman]

I sure would like to see a credible link. Key word: Credible.

To what? The approps bills that don't include the funds to support tort reform in states?

"The Democrats included tort reform language from two GOP bills (including Paul Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation) in the ACA."

 

[Greenbeard]

I sure would like to see a credible link. Key word: Credible.

To what? The approps bills that don't include the funds to support tort reform in states?

"The Democrats included tort reform language from two GOP bills (including Paul Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation) in the ACA."

2007: One of the top GOP leaders on health in the Senate--and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--Mike Enzi introduces his Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783 in that Congress). It introduces federal support for state-level tort reform that can satisfy even the Tenth Amendment crowd that reflexively opposes tort reform solutions that require federalizing tort law--instead it offers states grants to try out alternative to their current tort laws:

SEC. 393. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT MEDICAL TORT LITIGATION.

Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 399R. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT MEDICAL TORT LITIGATION.

`(a) In General- The Secretary is authorized to award demonstration grants to States for the development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation for resolving disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations. In awarding such grants, the Secretary shall ensure the diversity of the alternatives so funded.
`(b) Duration- The Secretary may award up to 10 grants under subsection (a) and each grant awarded under such subsection may not exceed a period of 5 years.​

2009: GOP leaders (most notably Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn) in both chambers collaborate to produce a comprehensive health reform bill, in anticipation of the Democrats releasing their own health reform bills later in the year. This legislation, The Patients' Choice Act (H.R. 2520 in that Congress), borrows from Enzi's previous attempt by including:

SEC. 601. STATE GRANTS TO CREATE HEALTH COURT SOLUTIONS.

Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`SEC. 399R. STATE GRANTS TO CREATE HEALTH COURT SOLUTIONS.

`(a) In General- The Secretary may award grants to States for the development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation that comply with this section, for the resolution of disputes concerning injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations.
`(b) Conditions for Demonstration Grants-
`(1) APPLICATION- To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a State shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as may be required by the Secretary. A grant shall be awarded under this section on such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines appropriate.​

2010: The Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. It contains the following provision (which can, of course, also now be looked up in the U.S. Code since it's actually U.S. law now: 42 USC § 280g–15 - State demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation), which sounds suspiciously copied and pasted:

SEC. 10607. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT MEDICAL TORT LITIGATION.

Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.), as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘SEC. 399V–4 §42 U.S.C. 280g–15. STATE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS TO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT MEDICAL TORT LITIGATION.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to award demonstration grants to States for the development, implementation, and evaluation of alternatives to current tort litigation for resolving disputes over injuries allegedly caused by health care providers or health care organizations. In awarding such grants, the Secretary shall ensure the diversity of the alternatives so funded.
‘‘(b) DURATION.—The Secretary may award grants under sub- section (a) for a period not to exceed 5 years.​

‘‘(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for the 5-fiscal year period beginning with fiscal year 2011.

2011: Around the country, GOP governors (in 29 states!) and GOP statehouse majorities (total control of the legislature in 25 states, partial control of 8 more!) take office following the 2010 wave election. The best opportunity in a generation for the GOP to implement tort reform in states all over the country appears. If only there was some federal assistance to help them (or push them?) into doing it!

Meanwhile, Obama ups the ante five-fold in his budget request that year: Obama's Budget Includes $250M in Malpractice Grants

WASHINGTON -- In a nod to those who have called for changes in the medical liability system, President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes $250 million in Justice Department grants for states that want to try out some alternatives.

The aim of the grants -- which were quietly tucked into the Justice Department budget and not even mentioned by the nation's top health officials -- is to help states try out an alternative to the medical tort system that would fairly compensate patients who are harmed by negligence, improve the quality of healthcare, and reduce medical costs associated with defensive medicine, according to a Justice Department summary.

2013: Anonymous poster on the Internet has never heard of any of this because Congress never funded it.

 

[daveman]

See? Was that so hard?

 

[EriktheRed]

ZEROcare: Step one to Single Payer Socialism

One can hope, anyway...

 

[Darkwind]

What's the best way forward to best
-Insure the population
-Lower the insurance cost to the customer
-Create the highest level of innovation

etc

This is what we want.

That is not forward.

When will people come to realize that growing and strengthening government is a step backwards? Hell, its a hundred steps backward.

We've fought a half-dozen wars to keep government from becoming tyrannical, not only here but abroad.

Now people are willingly walking back into the servitude and manacles.

 

[Flopper]

To what? The approps bills that don't include the funds to support tort reform in states?

"The Democrats included tort reform language from two GOP bills (including Paul Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation) in the ACA."

2007: One of the top GOP leaders on health in the Senate--and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--Mike Enzi introduces his Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783 in that Congress). It introduces federal support for state-level tort reform that can satisfy even the Tenth Amendment crowd that reflexively opposes tort reform solutions that require federalizing tort law--instead it offers states grants to try out alternative to their current tort laws:


2009: GOP leaders (most notably Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn) in both chambers collaborate to produce a comprehensive health reform bill, in anticipation of the Democrats releasing their own health reform bills later in the year. This legislation, The Patients' Choice Act (H.R. 2520 in that Congress), borrows from Enzi's previous attempt by including:


2010: The Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. It contains the following provision (which can, of course, also now be looked up in the U.S. Code since it's actually U.S. law now: 42 USC § 280g–15 - State demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation), which sounds suspiciously copied and pasted:

‘‘(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for the 5-fiscal year period beginning with fiscal year 2011.

2011: Around the country, GOP governors (in 29 states!) and GOP statehouse majorities (total control of the legislature in 25 states, partial control of 8 more!) take office following the 2010 wave election. The best opportunity in a generation for the GOP to implement tort reform in states all over the country appears. If only there was some federal assistance to help them (or push them?) into doing it!

Meanwhile, Obama ups the ante five-fold in his budget request that year: Obama's Budget Includes $250M in Malpractice Grants

WASHINGTON -- In a nod to those who have called for changes in the medical liability system, President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes $250 million in Justice Department grants for states that want to try out some alternatives.

The aim of the grants -- which were quietly tucked into the Justice Department budget and not even mentioned by the nation's top health officials -- is to help states try out an alternative to the medical tort system that would fairly compensate patients who are harmed by negligence, improve the quality of healthcare, and reduce medical costs associated with defensive medicine, according to a Justice Department summary.

2013: Anonymous poster on the Internet has never heard of any of this because Congress never funded it.

Tort Reform has always been a GOP red herring. They have used it as a diversion from their lack of a viable healthcare plan. Private practice doctors who are mostly Republicans would benefit greatly from tort reform and not surprising court room lawyers who are mostly Democrats have the most to lose. This is and always has been a political issue that will have little effect on the growth of healthcare cost.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What's the best way forward to best
-Insure the population
-Lower the insurance cost to the customer
-Create the highest level of innovation

etc

This is what we want.

That is not forward.

When will people come to realize that growing and strengthening government is a step backwards? Hell, its a hundred steps backward.

We've fought a half-dozen wars to keep government from becoming tyrannical, not only here but abroad.

Now people are willingly walking back into the servitude and manacles.

When will you realize that your idea of pure capitalism failed just as badly as socialism? We can't compete against China, India and the rest of the first world with only big business with limitations. Unless of course you want to go back to the early 20th century with the Rockefellers, etc. Maybe we could allow Spacex, Google, Apple, to totally do as they do best....

Still the government does do great things as they help fund some of the larger programs that push innovation. Really so the infrastructure.

 

[Flopper]

One way to get the doctors to work within a single payer system is to lower taxes for doctors. Maybe down to 10%? is my suggestion. Or maybe we could Give them special benefits just for doctors, etc. This way we have a system that's far less costly for the little guy, but the doctor benefits and wants to practice. Makes it worth their time.

What do you think?

...but, why pay doctors when you can get nurse practitioners, midwives, and PAs to do the work for less than half the cost? I mean that's what the euro setup is. They don't care if the practitioners are highly qualified or not. It isn't about quality it's about quantity.

We all have to be willing to give up good care to ensure that everyone gets the same care.

Sad thing is that with all liberal policy - it's the middle class who suffers. We end up getting the same care as the poor - we just have to pay more money for it. The rich will continue to pay for the best care in the world as $1200 per month to them has the same financial impact as $600 (soon to be $800) per month.

It's called triage and it's used in every ER in the US. Most doctor's offices in the US have PA's who practice medicine under the direction of physicians and surgeons. They are formally trained to examine patients, diagnose injuries and illnesses, and provide treatment. They are a US invention and found only in few countires in Europe.

 

[Obamanation]

"The Democrats included tort reform language from two GOP bills (including Paul Ryan's 2009 health reform legislation) in the ACA."

2007: One of the top GOP leaders on health in the Senate--and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--Mike Enzi introduces his Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783 in that Congress). It introduces federal support for state-level tort reform that can satisfy even the Tenth Amendment crowd that reflexively opposes tort reform solutions that require federalizing tort law--instead it offers states grants to try out alternative to their current tort laws:


2009: GOP leaders (most notably Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn) in both chambers collaborate to produce a comprehensive health reform bill, in anticipation of the Democrats releasing their own health reform bills later in the year. This legislation, The Patients' Choice Act (H.R. 2520 in that Congress), borrows from Enzi's previous attempt by including:


2010: The Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. It contains the following provision (which can, of course, also now be looked up in the U.S. Code since it's actually U.S. law now: 42 USC § 280g–15 - State demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to current medical tort litigation), which sounds suspiciously copied and pasted:



2011: Around the country, GOP governors (in 29 states!) and GOP statehouse majorities (total control of the legislature in 25 states, partial control of 8 more!) take office following the 2010 wave election. The best opportunity in a generation for the GOP to implement tort reform in states all over the country appears. If only there was some federal assistance to help them (or push them?) into doing it!

Meanwhile, Obama ups the ante five-fold in his budget request that year: Obama's Budget Includes $250M in Malpractice Grants

WASHINGTON -- In a nod to those who have called for changes in the medical liability system, President Obama's 2012 budget proposal includes $250 million in Justice Department grants for states that want to try out some alternatives.

The aim of the grants -- which were quietly tucked into the Justice Department budget and not even mentioned by the nation's top health officials -- is to help states try out an alternative to the medical tort system that would fairly compensate patients who are harmed by negligence, improve the quality of healthcare, and reduce medical costs associated with defensive medicine, according to a Justice Department summary.

2013: Anonymous poster on the Internet has never heard of any of this because Congress never funded it.

Tort Reform has always been a GOP red herring. They have used it as a diversion from their lack of a viable healthcare plan. Private practice doctors who are mostly Republicans would benefit greatly from tort reform and not surprising court room lawyers who are mostly Democrats have the most to lose. This is and always has been a political issue that will have little effect on the growth of healthcare cost.

Tort reform is not a red herring ---

I have seen the liberal studies that show torts only represent about 7% of the cost of healthcare. As usual through, the studies only tell one part of the story. That 7% represents dollars awarded as a result of torts --- what this misses is the billions upon billions that hospitals/doctors spend practicing defensive medicine.

Let me tell you, working in the medical field for the last 22 years, I have seen a transition in the medical field. In 1991, we used clinical abilities to diagnose and treat patients. Today, every test under the sun is ordered, mostly without cause. ERs are forced to give every patient a complete medical workover for every visit.

You come in after a fall with wrist pain, and in addition to your wrist x-ray, you end up getting complete lab panels and even a chest x-ray, just to ensure that there isn't other stuff going on in addition to your complaint. Also, if you mention that you "felt out of breath the other day" while mowing your yard", we are compelled to investigate your shortness of breath....

It's ridiculous! That 7% quickly becomes 37%, as defensive medical practice grows into tort prevention efforts. The more sue-happy America has become the higher the cost of tort prevention medical practice!