Obama & the Democrats: You're all tone deaf and have been for decades. America doesn't want Socialized Heath Care nor can it afford another overblown entitlement program! Your stupidity is now ripping apart the very seems of the Union.
America wants heathcare REFORM, not healthcare REVOLUTION. It's possible to insure the 15 million citizens who WANT coverage but can't afford it without destroying the best health CARE system in the world.
The way to lower costs and cover the uninsured is through the free market system. Not through Uncle Sam's interference. Medical savings accounts, private co-ops, purchasing pools, and tax credits are all viable solutions. Tort reform is crucial too. A "public option" is not. The government has an unfair advantage through taxpayer subsidies and will crowd out all private competitors.
America doesn't want GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS. It's not a "public option" as Obama so neatly catch-phrased it. It's GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS, or Socialized Heathcare, and there's no "option" if your employer switches your coverage. And we citizens don't want this! No beuraucrat should ever stand between you and your doctor and lowering costs shouldn't preclude top-notch care. Going to the doctor should never be like going to the DMV, and GOVERNMENT HOSPTIALS will give us that. Just like they did in England and Canada, where long lines, death panels, and rationing are now part of the heath care delivery system.
If Obama and the Dumocrats like Socialized Healthcare so much than I suggest they move to Russia, Cuba, or the like and become single-payers in those failed sytems. Otherwise, HANDS OFF MY HEALTHCARE YOU GREEDY BEUREAUCRATS!!! |
|
"while they stoke the cultural fires necessary to hide their bias toward the rich and ONLY THE RICH."
|
|
don't commit malpractice. Simple as that. They want a return to the days when a patient who was 1% negligent (gosh, you should have told us about that hangnail) lost 100%.
It is also so very amusing that the very people who are whining about 'rationing' of health care because some of us think giving a 92 year old dementia patient a hip replacement is a bit much, but the don't want doctors to do all the tests that might be the essence of preventative care. I thought the goal was for every american, no matter how old, to get every test possible...no rationing. Now you want to ration because you think doctors--who are supposed to be ethical first, and worry about their own skin about 20th--do too many tests.
It can't be both folks. If we were smart, all women would get baseline mammograms at age 35, and go every year. Many women don't go because they cannot afford it, so they get breast cancer, often not found until stage 3 or worse. Yet, you folks now don't want doctors to have to give that mammogram even for uninsured women.
|
|
According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. Thus,
litigation costs and malpractice insurance is something like 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs.
Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.
We have roughly the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s, but cost of health care has doubled since then. |
|
You know that Medicare is government subsidized healthcare. It works quite well.
Medicare is affected by the hyperinflated medical expenses we have in the US.
But that why we need healthcare rreform
Healthcare coverage reform is separate. Hard to insure people could buy in to Medciare.
That is not government takeover.
|
|
Specialist sees a medicare patient in consultation. He must document that he spent 90 minutes with the patient to charge the full consultation fee of under $300.00. Patient calls to ask questions regarding consultation 5 times no extra charge. Doctor's staff fills out insurance forms free. Medicaid pays even less.
Lawyers see someone in consultation charge between $450-$500 for 60 minutes. Client calls with questions billed in 15 minute increments.
Doctor loses a patient big lawsuit. Lawyer loses a case shakes your hand and says too bad.
Who is really making too much off the American people?
Lives doctors save each year too many to count. Lives saved by lawyers zero. |
|
my internist and other physicians have done? They take NO insurance. None. They send my bills to the carrier, I pay their bill, carrier settles up with me
I bet the lot of you anti-healthcare reform types would have strokes if that happened to you. Instead, you take your medicare card and you pay next to nothing. If you had to pay (as I did last month) $750 for a check up, right there, that day, no waiting, no payment period, no credit cards, hmmm, you'd think twice, no?
If medicare is so bad, quit. You can always buy your own supplemental insurance. Or lobby to get rid of medicare all together. Isn't that really what the GOP's endgame is? |
|
|
History records that Bush told us all in his 2000 inaugural address was that the only Health Care Reform necessary was Tort Reform. So, who can explain why he couldn't get it passed in his first six years, with Conservative control of both houses? So now the same RNC health care Anal-ists are screaming for the same thing again. The Conservatives are stuck with this lie in their throats, and they HAVE NO INTENTION of sponsoring any legislation that will address the problem of a terminally ill health care delivery system in America. Their strategy has proven to be to fund dozens of RNC LIEsites, pay hundreds of hack writers to lie about Obamacare, and inflame the drooling masses to attend Tea Party town hall meetings. America has been Swiftboated again! |
|
"my internist and other physicians have done? They take NO insurance. None. They send my bills to the carrier, I pay their bill, carrier settles up with me"
Yes supporting a capitalist pig who does not care about the patient but more about the money. Funny one who claims that health care should be for all still hangs on to a doctor who obviously only treats those who can pay cash. Pretty much of a double standard I would say.
|
|
|
Obamacare as represented in HB3200 shows nothing to support any of the following: GOVERNMENT HOSPITALS, "can't switch coverage to another private plan if your employer drops group coverage", "the government option has unfair advantage through subsidies to the public option", "bureaucrats stand between you and your doctor". Sheer Bushit. These two links are proof: http:www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and the actual bill: http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/BILLS-111hr3200I H.pdf |
|
Private insurers have a huge market in medicare supplemental insurance. With a government option there will still be a market for people who want something more-- supplemental insurance. The scaremongers claim all these companies will go out of business, but it's a lie. There will be plenty of money to be made. (That's how it is in many countries which have universal coverage.) The insurers want the whole pie, even though such a system creates crises for millions of people-- as Rep. Bachman now admits. Ideologues dance around this dilemma--but the answer always points to the same solution we usually end up with in this country-- a private/public mix that will eventually lead us to universal coverage.
|
|
If you lack of knowledge health care policy is anywhere near your lack of knowledge about med mal litigation or the practice of law...
"Lawyers see someone in consultation charge between $450-$500 for 60 minutes. Client calls with questions billed in 15 minute increments."
Absolutely false, on all fronts. Med mal attorneys take cases (normally) on contingency fee basis (go look that up, as I'm sure you don't know what that means...or ask St. Denis, she pretends to be an attorney). Attorneys making $400/$500 hour practice in areas related to big business, white collar crime, you know, common man stuff. Attorneys don't bill in 15 min increments, they bill in 6.
"Doctor loses a patient big lawsuit. Lawyer loses a case shakes your hand and says too bad."
False (must be listening to Blenn Geck). A lawyer loses a "contingency fee" case, he goes to the local tavern where s/he drinks her/himself stupid thinking "I just spent 3 years of my life and $1000s in costs and I (like my client) got nothing." This is kinda like arguing with you twits on TH, minus the cost.
"Who is really making too much off the American people?"
Hmm. "TOO MUCH"? What's "too much"? What's enough? This statement sounds socialist. Face it, you're a lying communist sympathizer, statist, fascist, racist, who hates America. (see this is what it's like debating a dining room table, like yourself).
"Lives doctors save each year too many to count. Lives saved by lawyers zero."
Lawyers are supposed to save lives now too? If docs did their jobs, attorneys wouldn't have to do theirs.
Go watch some Fox News. |
|
|
He tells of a 14K Catscan ordered by the doctor who examined his son's football injury as being an example of "defensive medicine", with the fix being Tort Reform. Wrong on all counts: 1. No way a glorified xray should cost 14K. 2.Conflict of interest: his physician gave unneccessary referrals (inappropriate care)to the same clinics they own! 3.Tort Reform: Bush lied about a bill (see below) So, his son got the wrong care, was charged too much, and the doctor ripped off the insurance company that paid the claim. The doctor made 500k that year. Tell me why I'm wrong! |
|
one word. Choice. you can leave this type of medical practice instead you choose to stay. If you were a bit smart you would have chosen a medical plan that bwould cover some of your out-of-pocket expense instead of paying cash. The problem with this is, it affords you choice ans since it seems you don't want to waste a single neuron thinking about options, instead you choose "freebies" the gov plan offers you as your legal rights...entitlements folks are as powerful as the drugs your fool in chief use to take. Example of this...welfare.
|
|
|
You do know that medicare advantage, a program used by more than 10 million, will no longer be available to seniors don't you. Came from Obama's own lips. So we know that at least 10 million will no longer be able to keep that insurance as they were promised. In the words of Obama "if you like your insurance you will be able to keep it." Oh and by the way AARP stand a lot to gain if medicare fees are cut. They pay the 20% that medicare does not cover. Medicare fees are cut and AARP gets to pay less. Bet they would not lower their premiums to reflect this change. No wonder they sucked up to Obama. Nothing for the elderly but plenty for them. No honest negotiations going on just favors. |
|
|
You are quite an idiot aren't you. I never mentioned a malpractice lawyer did I. I gave the example of a lawyer vs. a doctor and how they derive their income. I was not discussing lawyers that do cases on percentage I was discussing lawyers in general. Before you waste time writing an entire post on something like this please take time to read what I actually wrote. |
|
please show me where, in ANY of the bills proposed to date, that 'choice' is not going to be available to you? The 'public option' by definition is an 'option'. You need not take it. If I understand the opposition on the right to the 'public option', it is the fear (always fear) that somehow private insurance plans will not be able to compete with the public option. Now, is this fear based on the fact that the public will be happier with a plan run by the govt (note, please, that I don't hear many who are on govt. plans like medicare or the VA demanding that they be allowed to waive their access to govt. care, even if the govt. handed over 'all the money' they allegedly paid in taxes and such over the years that 'entitled' them to medicare)? Why would anyone be happy with a deficient plan? Simply because it costs them less? Isn't that counterintuitive? You say that Americans want the best care, and govt. care isn't the best care, right (except for those on medicare)? But then you seem to be saying that Americans want the cheapest, the least out of pocket plan they can get? Are you suggesting that Americans want welfare? Well priced private insurance that can no longer reject pre-existing conditions or reject you if you get sick would be competitive, no?
|
|
|
Kaboom stouts in one post that she thinks all are deserving of health care and then touts that she pays her doctor cash. She claims that doctors are pigs when it comes to treating patients and then says that people with medicare are taking advantage. You see a pattern here. She does not give a damn about people as long as she gets what she wants. A totally disingenuous lib. |
|
I am very smart. I don't select care by who is paying. I select it by who is providing me with services. I like my doctor. Nothing my carrier (or the govt) does will stop me from going to my doctor of choice, not now, and not under any changes that are being proposed. Mrs. Ramsey...let me ask you this: if my doctor currently TAKES no insurance, and there is no provision in ANY of the proposals to date that requires doctors to take any particular patient regardless of their payment source, how on earth would a public option help me? I'd still be out of pocket until my carrier pays me what IT thinks is the appropriate cost, as would the public option. I am still selecting my doctor, no?
|
|
because I think you have cognitive problems, I'd like you to show me where I said that I think that medicare patients are taking advantage of anything? I do think that most of us end up taking out far more than we ever put in to any govt. plan, but seniors for decades have held onto their entitlements with death grips.
|
|
I am really sick of smug Medicare recipients
poo poohing the thought that the same plan they enjoy could be open to Americans can't get private insurance.
Go read the mEDpaC analysis
http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Mar09_EntireReport.pdf |
|
"but seniors for decades have held onto their entitlements with death grips."
First of all try to find a private policy that covers someone over 65 that will bypass medicare. Doubt that you can. Our elderly deserve far more than your illegals that you seem to be so interested in. Most here think you are just stupid but for me you have proved it without a shadow of a doubt.
|
|
|
And you think it can be paid for how? You are fine with the government deciding what care will be available to you. Yes you deserve the government to take care of your health needs. me I will happily pay my premiums for the good insurance that I have. |
|
SJA,
You pay premiums. So would they.
The government subsidizes your insurance.
Your doc and you, direct it.
Are you then a socialist.
Of course not. |
|
First of all, seniors see themselves, just like welfare victims, as being 'entitled' to medicare and social security. That they didn't pay anything into it close to what it costs to take care of them, well, that's not important to them. They are 'entitled', right? My father in law married a second time when he was 55. His first child was born when he was 60, his second when he was 65. Both, until they turned 18 (so 13 years for the first, and 18 years for the second) got social security entitlements for 'minor children'. Yet, my father in law, now almost 90, doesn't see the piggishness in that little loophole in the plan, all the while crying about the 'debt' WE (not he) are creating for 'his children'. LOL.
Seniors can buy supplemental insurance that lets them to beyond the network. They don't, because they like what they get. They like the small (if any) copays. They think they are entitled to whatever they get, in spades.
Yet, they hate 'government care'. LOL. |
|
|
Get it medicare advantage will be gone. Check what Obama has said. Sure negates that statement that "if you like your insurance you can keep it" Not for 10 million, how many will follow. Time to tell the truth but as we see Obama has such a problem with that. Oh and you have yet to tell us how the government will pay for everyone to be on a medicare type system and not be subjected to rationing and long waits. |
|
|
let me see how much did the government take from the welfare recipients in mandatory taxes each paycheck. Good guess nothing. I think I have finally figured you out. Your quest for benefits for the illegals and distain for the elderly makes me realize that you are probably an illegal with a computer jealous of those poor old folks. I am sure if you really live in California you can get plenty while the others go broke paying for you. |
|
Back on the topic of this thread, coopmeister's very accurate point that malpractice costs are a very small percentage of total health care costs kind of flew by without comment.
The insistence on tort reform is purely partisan, since trial lawyers are Democrats and insurance executives are Republicans. |
|
|
you need to see Glenn Beck's psychiatrist. |
|
|
Seems I hit a never. What country are you from? How many years have you been sucking off the tax payers of this country? |
|
We could cover the 10-15 million people who arent covered by health insurance for the approximate $200 billion a year we all have to pay in medical liability insurance costs and "defensive medicine" costs?
Wow fixing health insurance crisis was easy...what should we tackle next? |
|
|
is one and a proven one at that. This liar has all the credibility of "DR" Roxana Meyer, she of course posed as a doctor at a leftist town hall meeting, extolling the virtues of the govt. option. Never mind, that she WAS NOT A DOCTOR! Details, details, don't let the details get in the way of the "GOVT. OPTION". This liar should be ostracized, ignored, and sent packing, to environs, that except lying. That would be, all left wing blogs. Where her lying can be admired, and nurtured. Scram liar... |
|
Medical malpractice is damaging to the system and it is easy to see based ont he range of insurance premiums in different states. States with caps on pain and suffering have much lower medical malpractice rates, thus lower medical costs, thus lower insurance costs.
What I wonder though is why most places don't follow the approach profiled in the Mayo Clinic. They have voluntary arbitratation boards run by lawyers who provide compensation immediatly for medical malpractice. The average compensation is $58,000 which is more than most people get in a lawsuit because it keeps out the lawyer and trial costs. Meanwhile the hospital saves money and also has a true investigation of problems that results in best practices.
Litigation reform doesn't mainly save in fees. It saves in the amount of time wasted in the system, because you see it in not the rewards that cost the money, it is the ineffeciency, malpractice attorneys, defense lawyers, and general times wasting of the system.
|
|
"Defensive medicine" is when doctors, following the advice of bean-counters, lawyers, and professional associations, decide to do tests that, in the past, other doctors in similar circumstances FAILED to do -- and because of that failure -- their patient was injured -- they got sued -- and they LOST.
Doctors don't perform this "defensive medicine" for no reason. They don't x-ray the foot when someone comes in with a cold. They don't give someone an MRI when someone presents with a sprained ankle.
They DO give tests that PREVIOUSLY, in similar circumstances, they WOULD NOT HAVE -- but NOW (since other doctors who likewise didn't give these tests in similar circumstances CAUSED INJURY to their patients as a result of this omission) they DO.
This is like saying that supermarkets only mop the aisles of liquids because they're scared of lawyers. OF COURSE they're "scared of lawyers." But the REASON that they're "scared of lawyers" is because that little old lady that rounded a corner and slipped in a pool of Pepsi which had been sitting on the floor for ten hours ended up with a broken back and SUED the supermarket for its negligence.
Sheesh. |
|
If Bachman's child is sick, which tests would she opt out of for the sake of cost constraint? Does she want the Dr. or the government to manage that?
The faer of socialized health care becaue it is government run is soon to be a fact with or without the reform plan. Very soon the baby boom generation will all be on Medicare. I am sure the mantra will be that we want the government to "keep their hands off our medicare". Right!
The government socialized/welfare for farmers seems to be okay and for oil companies and for ACORN and for ethanol and for....
Why do we bury our heads in the sand and pretend this will be something different then all the other government subsidies? What social change wasn't met with sire predictions of the end of freedom or the end of something? From women voting to civil rights, someone predicted the end of the world. And guess what, we are all still thriving. |
|
|
In the era of computers, why not a program to determine block grant deposit to medical facilities for their billing dept. to pay out according to a 'need scorecard'% of payment: 0% patient pays all - up to 100% grant pays Am citizen patient need. Program would be objective, impartial, and meet needs. (2000) Beginnings and Beyond, Gordon & Williams-Browne, p. 61:..Headstart is the 'leading health care system for low-income children in the country' (Greenburg,1990), providing health and medical screening, and treatment for thousands of youngsters."...why the rush? Is gov't helping, or enabling? What is the twelve-step recovery plan for constitutional-fiscal soberiety? |
|
Ms. Bachmann,
Why have you not opted out of your taxpayer funded health care plan that is so bad for the rest of us? Isn't it a bit hypocritical to stay in it?
You call yourself a christian woman yet you would deny healthcare to the working and middle class because its too expensive...A public option would make it cost less....it would not be socialism...
Could it be the millions that the insurance companies and big pharm are sending your way have anything to do with your attempts to defeat the public option?
Do you realize when we privatized medicare advantage programs ande now we taxpayers are paying more than traditional medicare and the profits of the insurance companies are increasing to the taxpayers detriment.
Do you realize it is the American people who you work for and not corporations because the way you act I think you do not get this concept but come re-election time you will....corporations do not vote...but people do.
|
|
The good lady quotes a "study" putting the cost of defensive medicine much higher--$100 billion to $178 billion per year
The "numbers" are not from a study, but an opinion piece. and the author makes some wild extrapolation based on a 1996 study involving only very sick Medicare patients.
|
|
Of course they are broke. And that is because politicians like Michelle have been afraid to address this issue for years. It isn't news that these programs are under funded. But ask Michelle what options there are other than raising the tax or reducing the benefits. She will oppose either solution. Why? Because she wants to get re-elected not solve problems. The rant about tort reform costing so much is another typical political diatribe. Where are any facts about this? How about some facts about a Doctor's malpractice insurance? And maybe the AMA should weed out the incompetent Doctor's instead of protecting them.
Politicians hate facts. We need TERM LIMITS now! |
|