I believe the Party of Fear and Greed, The Republicans, are scared to death of changes to health care because the 1% who buy the government,and who are represented by the Repulicans, will no longer be able to hold the masses as slaves through cruel health insurance rules and availability. Once we can get health care at a reasonable price and can tranfer policies, they no longer have a strangle hold on the american worker.

Please discuss:

If the health reform act passes devoid of a public option, there will be a tremendous backlash IMO...

Ty, I don't think that's it at all. At least it's not for me. The main issue for me has always been cost and choice. I also don't think the Government can do what private enterprise can do in terms of innovating. Also as Rick Kuchynka has said insurance is also part of the problem.

I'm not talking about the issues you and I may have reguarding Health Insurance. Those are inconsequestial to those making the real decisions and have the real power. The Big companies (especially insurance and Medical companies) are almost hysterical when it comes to this issue. Why?? From what I have heard so far, it would actually cost them less to do business with a public option and they would have a healthier work force. So what could possibly make those in power that upset? Loosing a means to control their workers. When you can choose to leave the job you hate at Generomart an be able to work for your friend in construction AND NOT LOOSE YOUR INSURANCE. Suddenly you have an empowered, NON CAPTIVE work force. I know of many people who only work where they are because of their insurance and employer's know this. A REAL choice scares the poop out of large employers. SO Large employers back and often sponsor those who will do or say anything for the money. They sponsor those who will say anything(ie Beck and Limbaugh, etc. etc)to demonize the chance at a truly freer life. They themselves will spread lies and myths about the options just to maintain what they feel is power over others. This is sad. Big Money over people is always so sad.

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]

Here is something to think about as well, though I haven't actually read the healthcare bill, I believe that until they reform the medicaid system, improve the treatment and health benefits of the people who are and who have served our country and be fair with the medicare system..THEN I will be more open minded to the whole govt healthcare program. Even if this program is approved, physicians, surgeons, any healthcare professional, and or onsite medical facility (hospitals, nursing homes, outpatient centers ect.) Will still have the right to refuse the plan. This happens already with medicare, medicaid, private plans...no one has to accept it. This meaning they will not be forced to bill the government insurance and you will be forced to do this yourself after paying upfront costs (and good luck getting reimbursed..don't forget to read the fine print) Or just plain won't accept it at all. This is an issue that has to be ironed out very carefully and not "rushed." It has to be fair to the medical community and honestly if the reimbusement is anything like medicare, it's not gonna fly period! Hopefully they take their time and get this right. There are MANY factors to consider. It's not just about political views or income levels, there are serious details to work out!!

[This message has been edited by JLB (9/29/2009)]

[This message has been edited by JLB (9/29/2009)]

Those are inconsequestial...Loosing a means to control their workers...NOT LOOSE YOUR INSURANCE...employer's know this...

Last, but not least;

This is sad.

Your last observation speaks for itself.

JLB- You make some very compelling arguements. Something to think about. Thanks.

Heath - Thanks, you're right.

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]

I'm not up as most of you on the new proposals but it seems to me that the Health Care System would benefit greatly by putting a limit on healthcare prices, a cap on law suits and mostly. . .

outlaw the TV advertisements for lawsuits against drug companies, etc.

Every prescription I have ever gotten has come with warnings on side effects. Personally, I think people somewhere are going to have to take responsibility for their own actions. Don't take the drugs if they don't work for you. Yes . . . I know there are exceptions to this rule also.

I think there needs to be something to monitor hospital bills, etc because I don't think people with insurance really check to see if they are being overbilled. What it comes down to is what they have to pay out of pocket. I know I didn't monitor my bills when I had insurance. GUILTY!

I guess this is more a question than a statement but I know I can't afford health insurance at $500/month per person. My health is too poor to qualify for private insurance and this $500 is through my Husbands employment.

I think that it goes beyond healthcare. People are too "Sue Happy". It's hard to even be in business for yourself and operate an honest business.

Comments?

That is definately part of the problem that increases everyone's health costs "Sue Happy" people just looking for their payout. Most people use common sense but there are a lot of "pill poppers" out there who just thrive on this stuff, take their medicine irresponsibly and "share" it with others. Another thought I had was somehow to have the drug companies NOT advertise on TV period!! It used to be this way, they were allowed however to advertise in magazines, but the cost alone for TV time is another issue raising the costs of prescription drugs. With the internet availablity most of us can do without the commercials and research on our own. I think they have cut back on "rewarding" physicians to prescribe to patients the new and upcoming drugs that are out there, but I am sure that hasn't stopped completely. Who pays for those expensive dinners? Trips? Golf games? And other incentives.....the consumer that's who. Yes it has happened, I've seen it and probably still does to some degree (though I think it's been scaled back quite a bit.) Now, there are plenty of low cost meds available generically that have been out for 20 years...most of those you don't see lawyers offering their "services" due to recalls. These have been out long enough and the long term side effects have more than likely come out of the closet. Just because something is new on the market doesn't mean it's the best. If all physicians operated this way maybe, just maybe, insurance costs wouldn't have gotten so out of control.

JLB-That was one of the points I missed but totally agree.

You really complimented what I meant to say.

JustMe,
I agree with your comment about people being, "Sue happy." However, plaintiff driven lawsuits, while part of the problem, are not exclusive to the problem.

The problem, "goes well beyond healthcare," as you say.

Greed is the prevalent hitch. Doctors want to live in nice neighborhoods and send their kids to private schools, hospitals want to please their share holders, pharmaceutical companies want to book healthy profits, etc. There's no need to malign those who make their livings within the realm of health care, for the same is true of other sectors of business, ad infinitum. We live in a greedy, profit-driven country, but I continue to hold fast to the premise that the best country in which to live and raise children is the America known to consistently promote good over evil. Remove the idea that profit is evil and you will find good people making their way, with some very bad apples giving profit a bad name.

The health care industry (and that's what it is, a profit driven industry) doesn't want more regulation, they want less. They don't need more, they need less. More regulation will not bring the cost of health care down, it will add to the burden of compliance, consequently increasing expenses for health care providers and increasing the cost of patient care.

In my estimation, people see the socialization of medicine as only the beginning of the socialization of America incrementally. You will continue to see segments of our society pushing back against things like the public option until the day when we have elected politicians who understand that less government is keen. Then, you will see segments of our society demanding their free cheese, FEMA checks, and health care.

What we need is an honest-to-goodness, old fashioned civil war. Not the guns and bullets type, but like in the 60's and 70's when two schoolkids could get into a fistfight and walk away after a handshake and a greater respect for one another. Best man/woman wins and all that, and work from there. How's THAT for a plan, Bridgier. That, and kill all the lawyers.

Go ahead, Wendy. *NOT EDITED FOR PUNCTUATION, GRAMMAR, OR SPELLING*

Malpractice related costs are 2% of the total healthcare costs in the US.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cf...968&type=0

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending.(12) Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.(13)

I will accept that, "Malpractice related costs are 2% of the total healthcare costs in the US," if;

1. you can show me all of the details of the model and the method, and
2. you can show what the remaining 98% of costs are.

Meanwhile, forget it.

Heath:

Read the footnote in Bridgier's link, you goof.

I'm sure the CBO is in the tank though...

Only when they disagree with Heath's preconceived notions...like,

(1) Everyone on welfare/unemployment/etc... doesn't want to work and are stealing from Heath
(2) Health care costs would be reasonable if not for them there lawyers
(3) The rich pay all of the taxes
(4) Government workers (including the military) are lazy and slothful and also stealing from Heath

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (9/30/2009)]

I never said those things specifically. You are summarizing, but I don't really care. You are free to interpret my comments any way you choose. Am I a goofy, elitist, narrow minded, exclusionary? Fine. Throw all the stones you can get your hands on, once you have emptied them of your free cheese.

It's "them thar lawyers".

Like I said, I'm sure you are all way ahead of me on this issue. I do agree that I don't have the answers but I still think the issues I brought up are way out of hand and do contribute to the problem.

In a malpractice lawsuit who decides the merit of the plaintiff's claim and subsequently what award, if any, the plaintiff should receive? Are we to assume that the person(s) making these decisions are incapable of making a fair decision? If so, should we trust the same person(s) with other court decisions (in both civil and criminal cases)? Are the people claiming that malpractice lawsuits are the root of all evil also implying that America's judicial system as a whole is fatally flawed?

Yes... they contribute approximately 2%.

Bridgier,

Can you back your statement up with anything more than a link or two (or twenty) taken from the great big ol' Internets? If you can, then it shouldn't be that difficult to show what the remaining 98% of the total of health care costs are. If you can, then I will concede, and accept your conclusion that 2% is a factual number.

Where the heck is Ty. This is his thread, he started this. TY, JUMP ON IN WHENEVER YOU FEEL THE URGE.

Ty,

Those who claim that health care should be "free enterprise" fail to mention that this freedom only goes one way, in the US. The laws are set up to benefit the business end and stifle the consumers.

An example of this is having a prescription filled across the border. While the argument could be made that it is for the protection on the consumer, this is not the case, as those in Canada have used the same prescription without any problems. The majority of the time it comes from the same company.

Additionally, China, with the use of toxic ingredients, is allowed to import food to the US. The last time I wanted to purchase shrimp, it was farm raised. Farm raised seafood has high levels of PCBs.

So I would tend to agree with you that medical care is used as a control mechanism.

Wendy, not sure what you statement is trying to imply about the lawyers. If you think we are passing all blame on them as the reason that costs are so high, that is not the case. I hold the patients fully responsible for their actions. Though, not all cases are ridiculous, some are very serious and they deserve to be compensated. It's just too bad that the courts don't recognize which cases are a waste of their time as well as the tax payers. Now, not to knock lawyers on this note, but most are very intelligent...not all, but most are. You would think they could recognize a waste of time when one walks through their office door and prevent it from getting that far. I know I will get jumped on for this and I don't care, you have to admit there really are sue happy people out there (Mcdonalds vs. Coffee) still kills me.

then I will concede, and accept your conclusion that 2% is a factual number.

I'll see what a trusted source such as the heritage foundation has on this issue, as the CBO doesn't appear to fit the bill.

Heritage Foundation!?

NOT WINGNUTTY ENOUGH!!!!

Try a better source such as Newsmax or World Net Daily.

"The Truth About That McDonald's Hot Coffee Lawsuit"

http://ken_ashford.typepa...wsuit.html

Thanks Dave, very interesting!!

JLB, I also used to cite that case as an example of lawsuits gone amok. Not so much anymore.

- Dave

Great link...

The following is a link regarding the cost structure of the US health care system and how it compares to other countries.

It is rather long, but easy reading.

http://www.mckinsey.com/m...apter1.pdf

Concerning the McDonald's coffee lawsuit;

SHE CHOSE TO PUT THE COFFEE CUP BETWEEN HER LEGS AND CHOSE TO PRY THE LID OFF. Any moran should know not to put a styrofoam cup full of hot coffee between their legs while sitting down in a car (or anywhere else for that matter, but ESPECIALLY in a car), that is probably (although the article did not state this fact) in motion, while trying to peel the lid off in order to add condiments. Even if the car were not in motion, coffee is hot, period. Doesn't matter how hot. Coffee is a low viscosity liquid, period. There is a lid on the cup for a reason. It is a frivolous lawsuit and a good example of the lack of personal responsibility many lawsuit happy morans share. Damn the judge and jury, she was responsible.

Though I agree that removing the lid off of coffee while in motion, isn't the best of choice, I personally will have to question the fact that it caused 3rd degree burns. The coffee made at home doesn't cause that kind of injury. No doubt, you'll get a burn, but you wouldn't need a skin graft.....there was no need for coffee to be that hot period! When I order coffee I expect it to be hot, but I don't want to have to stick it in the freezer for 5 minutes just to be able to sip it! Just my thought, not an attack on yours.

"I believe the Party of Fear and Greed, The Republicans, are scared to death of changes to health care because the 1% who buy the government,and who are represented by the Repulicans, will no longer be able to hold the masses as slaves through cruel health insurance rules and availability. Once we can get health care at a reasonable price and can tranfer policies, they no longer have a strangle hold on the american worker."

And I believe the party of Palosi and her pirates, The Democrats, are scared to death of losing their strangle-hold on the power and entitlement mentality they have acquired over the last 40 years. (There are a bunch of republicans that need to go as well.) Without government healthcare they will not be able to hold the masses as slaves through deficit spending and monumental tax increases. We can maybe then get some fiscal policy in place to deal with this madness.

It wasn't the first lawsuit that McDonalds had had over the temperature of their coffee. They knew that they were selling a product that was dangerous, but decided not to remedy that fact, and were punished for it. I believe the award was reduced upon appeal.

Bridgier,

The award should have been ZERO. When a hardware store sells a hammer, even though any moran can easily smash a thumb while using said hammer, the hardware retailer should not be held liable when a moran does so. It does not matter that other morans have bought hammers from the hardware retailer and have bashed their thumbs prior.

If the meek inherit the earth, how long will they stay meek after they get it?

And that's why it's a good thing that you're not in charge of anything heath.

Amen Bridgier!!!

So you say. I am in charge of more than you think. Unrelated to that statement, but in particular, I say I am in charge of my self and am entirely responsible for my own actions. I sincerely do not understand how a person willingly puts a cup of hot coffee between her legs while sitting in a car and after after willfully pulling the lid off in order to add condiments, that someone else is responsible for the coffee in the cup spilling on her legs and genitals, regardless of the temperature of the coffee. As any coffee drinker would expect, the coffee in this situation was hot, much like coffee served around the corner from anywhere and around world. Any reasonable person ordering hot coffee from McDonald's on any given day would have naturally expected to get what they ordered. Hot coffee.

She put the cup between her legs. She took the lid off. She spilled the coffee that probably would not have been spilled in such volume as to cause burns over X percent of her body if the lid were not removed. She made the decisions leading up to the spillage. The spillage caused her burns. If a reasonable person ordered water in a flexible and flimsy styrofoam cup with a lid and that person put the cup between his/her legs and removed the lid in a car while probably holding onto a stirrer or sugar packet, and spilled the water, should that person expect McDonald's to pay for the drying of the seat upholstery, pants, shoes, etc?

Entitlement mentality.

I am in charge of more than you think.

Okay, sorry, I meant, other than the Texas Board of Education http://www.chron.com/disp...81189.html, I'm glad that you're not in charge of anything important.

Right-leaning textbooks? As opposed to; http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=15016

I'm sorry if reality has a well known liberal bias heath.

I guess the white house was full of unicorns from 1981 through 1989.

I don't know about unicorns, but given the rather fantastical nature of Reagan hagiography, I wouldn't be surprised. There certainly were several trolls at any rate.

Don't forget the french magic pony fairies.

why do you think I borrowed a pair of Brian's leather chaps?

And that, fellow milescity.com posters, is, "The REAL Issue on Health Care."

Well, not really - I always make sure and give the chaps a good cleaning when I borrow them. The pope hat though... it's dry clean only.

Are those chaps laundered before you wear them, after you wear them, or both? I'm not saying........