Now, I lifted this from another website, but I think this is brilliant stuff.
Whenever the Republicans get all in a tizzy about how Obama is running this country, remind them of the following:
-You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
-You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
-You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
-You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
-You didn't get mad when we circumvented Congressional approval to invade a country that had not threatened us.
-You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said war.
-You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
-You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
-You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
-You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
-You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
-You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
-You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
-You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
-You didn't get mad when the housing industry collapsed because Wall Street fought even the slightest oversight whatsoever.
You finally got mad when the government decided that Americans deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
Now, I realize that not all Republicans fall into all these categories. But those who started waving their flags ONLY AFTER 9/11 remind me of all the above statements.
And I will be one to admit that I didn't get mad at alot of these. Mainly because I was not near as socially engaged during the first half of the previous administration as I am now.
-You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
How many times did they count?
-You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
Proof?
-You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
Not undercover, not covert. She told everyone she was CIA, even the media.
-You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
Yes at first. . .
-You didn't get mad when we circumvented Congressional approval to invade a country that had not threatened us.
Lobbed bombs at them for the past 8 years killing thousands of civilians. No result, seemed like the humane thing to do.
-You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said war.
LOL! Obama spends that in a week.
-You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
Uh huh! Could have used that for "stimulus"
-You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
Disgrace.
-You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
. . . who were having conversations with known terrorists (you left that out).
-You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
Still mad.
-You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
Still mad. Tis the condition of most veteran's facilities. Disgrace.
-You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
Did too! Got even madder when they tried to blame the disaster on the federal government LOL.
-You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
. . .and everyone else (you left that out)
-You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
Still mad, but we've fixed it, we've added another half trillion in less than a year.
-You didn't get mad when the housing industry collapsed because Wall Street fought even the slightest oversight whatsoever.
Riiight. . .
(http://raymondpronk.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/barney_frank.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on May 28, 2010, 10:52:10 AM
-You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
How many times did they count?
-You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
Proof? Muahahaha, I like this one because there isn't really "proof" because they wouldn't turn over any records of the closed door meeting. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/19/cheney.energy/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/19/cheney.energy/)
-You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
Not undercover, not covert. She told everyone she was CIA, even the media.
-You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
Yes at first. . .
-You didn't get mad when we circumvented Congressional approval to invade a country that had not threatened us.
Lobbed bombs at them for the past 8 years killing thousands of civilians. No result, seemed like the humane thing to do.
-You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said war.
LOL! Obama spends that in a week.
-You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
Uh huh! Could have used that for "stimulus"
-You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
Disgrace.
-You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
. . . who were having conversations with known terrorists anybody from any other country (you left that out).
-You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
Still mad.
-You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
Still mad. Tis the condition of most veteran's facilities. Disgrace.
-You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
Did too! Got even madder when they tried to blame the disaster on the federal government LOL.
-You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
. . .and everyone else (you left that out) *this is correct, there was about 895 billion to the top 1% and 5 billion for the rest of the country. Even if you got 1 cent back its a "tax cut" for everybody.
-You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
Still mad, but we've fixed it, we've added another half trillion in less than a year.
-You didn't get mad when the housing industry collapsed because Wall Street fought even the slightest oversight whatsoever.
Riiight. . .
You missed quite a few things..
Quote from: Trogdor on May 28, 2010, 11:00:35 AM
You missed quite a few things..
Oh, I'm sure I did.
And Scott, I wasn't asking you to substantiate the things you did or didn't get mad at. But that does tell me a little something about you.
Brilliant? Hardly, that's pretty weak sauce. Half truths, distortions, all the usual partisan angling and sniping.
Quote from: buckeye on May 28, 2010, 12:18:47 PM
Brilliant? Hardly, that's pretty weak sauce. Half truths, distortions, all the usual partisan angling and sniping.
You must be reading the Repub talking points then. Because, from where I sit, all of the above are true. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to it when it doesn't ascribe to their ideology.
But believe what you will.
Quote from: Hoss on May 28, 2010, 11:50:57 AM
Oh, I'm sure I did.
And Scott, I wasn't asking you to substantiate the things you did or didn't get mad at. But that does tell me a little something about you.
I meant gaspar.
QuoteYou must be reading the Repub talking points then. Because, from where I sit, all of the above are true. It's amazing how people turn a blind eye to it when it doesn't ascribe to their ideology.
But believe what you will.
Oh, I do and virtually none of it is accurately described by your little list. In fact, that little list very inaccurately describes Republicans from where I sit, but as that it comprises -your- talking points, you evidently believe what you will, too.
Astounding when the inaccuracy is pointed out to you but you refuse to learn or change - the very thing you're complaining about now. Partisan angling and sniping, that's all - something to giggle about when you're out drinking with like-minded buddies, but hardly anything of substance.
Quote from: buckeye on May 28, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
Oh, I do and virtually none of it is accurately described by your little list. In fact, that little list very inaccurately describes Republicans from where I sit, but as that it comprises -your- talking points, you evidently believe what you will, too.
Astounding when the inaccuracy is pointed out to you but you refuse to learn or change - the very thing you're complaining about now. Partisan angling and sniping, that's all - something to giggle about when you're out drinking with like-minded buddies, but hardly anything of substance.
OK, then feel free to disprove it via sourcing. Every thing on that list happened. You're just mad it happened during Bush43.
Do keep in mind that I say many Republicans are just as mad about a lot of things on that list as I am. I guess we can leave you off that list then, huh?
And when I go out drinking, politics never enters the discourse. If it does in your world, then a sad world it is...
Didn't you know that Republicans don't drink?
Sheesh...
Quotebuckeye on May 28, 2010, 11:18:47 am
Brilliant? Hardly, that's pretty weak sauce. Half truths, distortions, all the usual partisan angling and sniping.
Thanks, Rush and Sean. ::)
Quote from: buckeye on May 29, 2010, 07:51:48 PM
Didn't you know that Republicans don't drink?
Sheesh...
::)
"You finally got mad when the government decided that Americans deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick."My life is far more important than your unfair, unbalanced, economically privileged Republican talking points.
Sheesh.
Quote from: Hoss on May 28, 2010, 10:02:19 AM
Now, I lifted this from another website, but I think this is brilliant stuff.
Whenever the Republicans get all in a tizzy about how Obama is running this country, remind them of the following:
-You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
-You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
-You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
-You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
-You didn't get mad when we circumvented Congressional approval to invade a country that had not threatened us.
-You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said war.
-You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
-You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
-You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
-You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
-You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
-You didn't get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown.
-You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
-You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
-You didn't get mad when the housing industry collapsed because Wall Street fought even the slightest oversight whatsoever.
You finally got mad when the government decided that Americans deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick.
Now, I realize that not all Republicans fall into all these categories. But those who started waving their flags ONLY AFTER 9/11 remind me of all the above statements.
And I will be one to admit that I didn't get mad at alot of these. Mainly because I was not near as socially engaged during the first half of the previous administration as I am now.
+10
Quote from: JeffM on May 30, 2010, 07:47:52 PM
My life is far more important than your unfair, unbalanced, economically privileged Republican talking points.
Sheesh.
Um, no it's not.
Quote from: JeffM on May 30, 2010, 07:47:52 PM
Thanks, Rush and Sean. ::)
::)
"You finally got mad when the government decided that Americans deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick."
My life is far more important than your unfair, unbalanced, economically privileged Republican talking points.
Sheesh.
I especially liked the part when Nancy Pelosi said we won't know what's in the bill until it's passed.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 28, 2010, 11:00:35 AM
You missed quite a few things..
-You didn't get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich.
. . .and everyone else (you left that out) *this is correct, there was about 895 billion to the top 1% and 5 billion for the rest of the country. Even if you got 1 cent back its a "tax cut" for everybody.
How much of a tax cut can you give to people who don't pay much if any tax?
Hi, I'm here from the IRS. I see you only paid $1000 in income tax last year. Let's give you a $10,000 tax cut. You deserve it.
Quote from: guido911 on May 30, 2010, 08:26:19 PM
Um, no it's not.
Um, yes it is. ::)
Of course, believing an arrogant freeper Republican lawyer can differentiate simple concepts of right from wrong is like believing that a camel can go through the eye of a needle.... :P
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/13/cancer.insurance.finances/index.html
"...in 2007, 62 percent of personal bankruptcies were because of medical debts. The same study indicated that in 1981, only 8 percent of bankruptcy filings could be traced to medical bills."
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study examining U.S. health insurance policies generally found that from 1999 to 2009, the average family premium more than doubled. The Elders say that over the life of their Nationwide Insurance policy, their premiums nearly quadrupled.
The Elders believe that their health insurance premiums soared higher than those of the average family because of Leslie's previous cancer diagnosis.
"What is the message here? Survive cancer but then go drop dead because we can't make any money off you anymore?" Leslie Elder asked. "[The insurance companies] figure, 'You're useless. Get lost.' "
Mr. Semantics here.
We should probably stop calling the health care industry "Health Insurance". Imagine the reaction of a car insurance company if you tried to get collision insurance on a car you had just wrecked. Hi, I just wrecked my car. I'd like to buy a policy at your good driver rates to get it fixed.
By calling it "Health Care" rather than "Health Insurance", we may change the attitude of taking care of existing conditions.
First of all, we already have "universal car insurance" enforceable by law.
Yet it's mandatory health insurance that is characterized as "socialist."
Funny dat.
Secondly, my colon cancer wasn't caused by reckless driving or a momentary lapse of judgment or reckless lifestyle choice.
Yet, I can be penalized by going to the doctor early at the first onset of symptoms when my disease is treatable versus someone else enjoying lower premiums for years before getting a far more serious and costly disease in their 50s....
Thirdly, private health insurance companies already have the right to play God by denying or jacking up rates for some gay guy with AIDS, or the right to determine which "higher risk" citizens get to play russian roulette with their employer-based health insurance plan due to arbitrarily established pre-existing conditions. Conditions that vary from plan to plan and from employer to employer and from state to state....
Yet, it's "Obamacare" that we're told will result in "death panels."
Free-Market Death Panels
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/free-market_death_panels_97922.html
I became convinced that the insurance company was trying to run out the clock on my husband's life. Had it issued an outright "no," we would have gone to Deaconess, paid for the care ourselves and fought the insurer later. But it always pretended that a possible "yes" could be around the corner.
Having already lost precious time confronting this cancer, we simply rushed to Deaconess. On hearing the story, the head of the chemo program told us: "HMOs don't care whether you live or die. They just want to save money."
My husband underwent the arduous chemo. Meanwhile, powerful people were pulling strings for us with the insurer. Upon learning we had "connections," United Healthcare finally said it would pay.
The cancer came back. This treatment was never a sure thing, but I often wonder how much the delay affected the outcome.
An ex-Marine, my husband was a tough customer. Toward the end, he said to me, "You know, fighting the insurance company was worse than fighting the cancer."
A year after my husband died, I was still receiving medical bills for some of the treatment that United Healthcare had agreed to cover. Oh, they eventually paid. The game is to break you down.
Quote from: JeffM on May 31, 2010, 10:58:48 AM
First of all, we already have "universal car insurance" enforceable by law.
Yet it's mandatory health insurance that is characterized as "socialist."
Funny dat.
You can opt out of Universal Car Insurance by not owning/driving a car.
Pre-existing health conditions... yes I agree they need to be covered. Pricing is a different issue on how to not drive someone into bankruptcy due to a condition that is not their fault.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 31, 2010, 11:37:05 AM
You can opt out of Universal Car Insurance by not owning/driving a car.
Can you say that with a straight face and still live in Tulsa? :D
Quote from: JeffM on May 31, 2010, 11:50:10 AM
Can you say that with a straight face and still live in Tulsa? :D
Tulsa is not the only place in the USA to live.
If you object to car insurance enough, pick some place like NYC to live. A friend during my Navy days grew up in NYC and didn't even learn to drive until he was in the Navy.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 31, 2010, 10:27:13 AM
Mr. Semantics here.
We should probably stop calling the health care industry "Health Insurance". Imagine the reaction of a car insurance company if you tried to get collision insurance on a car you had just wrecked. Hi, I just wrecked my car. I'd like to buy a policy at your good driver rates to get it fixed.
By calling it "Health Care" rather than "Health Insurance", we may change the attitude of taking care of existing conditions.
I could buy into your argument if it weren't for the regularity of health insurance companies using completely irrelevant minor mistakes on the application to rescind the policy after someone gets sick. It's like failing to disclose a parking ticket to your auto insurance company resulting in your policy being canceled and no benefits paid when you have a crash after paying premiums for ten years.
The reason that health insurance and health care are now nearly synonymous is that health insurance is now a virtual necessity to receive care. Care is now so expensive that it's impossible to pay out of pocket and still remain solvent. Unlike car insurance, where most anyone can afford the minimum amount of required coverage. The two industries are similar in that they're called "insurance," but their relationship to the things they insure are very different.
My distinction between "insurance" and "care" is that insurance is used to cover events that may or may not happen in the future. You are betting they will. The "insurance" companies are betting they won't. When covering existing conditions, there is no bet, just expense. As I noted earlier, pre-existing conditions need to be covered in today's world. Therefore, in my mind they are no longer insurance companies but care companies to spread the cost around. There will be overhead no matter whether it is run by an inefficient government agency or by (hopefully) more efficient but profit making private enterprises.
I also won't argue that the "health insurance" companies are looking for any excuse to take your money and then not pay out. I've even had that problem with a Flexible Spending Account which was my money to begin with.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 31, 2010, 06:05:43 PM
My distinction between "insurance" and "care" is that insurance is used to cover events that may or may not happen in the future. You are betting they will. The "insurance" companies are betting they won't. When covering existing conditions, there is no bet, just expense. As I noted earlier, pre-existing conditions need to be covered in today's world. Therefore, in my mind they are no longer insurance companies but care companies to spread the cost around. There will be overhead no matter whether it is run by an inefficient government agency or by (hopefully) more efficient but profit making private enterprises.
I also won't argue that the "health insurance" companies are looking for any excuse to take your money and then not pay out. I've even had that problem with a Flexible Spending Account which was my money to begin with.
I understand the distinction, but my health insurance covers standard office visits as well as a portion of the unforeseen. But in moderating its risk (encouraging me to seek help before things get catastrophic), my insurance company has chosen to cover all kinds of stuff, most of which isn't "in case of emergency," which is how traditional insurance works.
Quote from: we vs us on May 31, 2010, 06:49:40 PM
I understand the distinction, but my health insurance covers standard office visits as well as a portion of the unforeseen. But in moderating its risk (encouraging me to seek help before things get catastrophic), my insurance company has chosen to cover all kinds of stuff, most of which isn't "in case of emergency," which is how traditional insurance works.
Which is why there is a blur between health insurance and health care. As I said earlier, it's semantics. Attach your own cause, effect, and importance.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 31, 2010, 08:12:34 PM
Which is why there is a blur between health insurance and health care. As I said earlier, it's semantics. Attach your own cause, effect, and importance.
I'm gonna be pissed if we're agreeing on something again.
Quote from: we vs us on May 31, 2010, 09:21:52 PM
I'm gonna be pissed if we're agreeing on something again.
Me too.
What can I say? Stuff happens.
Moving violations & accidents are essentially "pre-existing conditions" when you are rated for car insurance. Your claims history and credit score also factor into your rates. If you have shopped for car insurance lately, you will notice that insurers no longer look at the last three years for accidents & tickets, they are looking at five years.
Insurance companies are in the risk business. In order to remain solvent, they must charge higher rates for more obvious risks. They do the same thing in consumer lending as well.
They will always look at any means to justify raising rates as their costs go up. Pretty much how any business operates.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 08:46:33 AM
Moving violations & accidents are essentially "pre-existing conditions" when you are rated for car insurance. Your claims history and credit score also factor into your rates. If you have shopped for car insurance lately, you will notice that insurers no longer look at the last three years for accidents & tickets, they are looking at five years.
Insurance companies are in the risk business. In order to remain solvent, they must charge higher rates for more obvious risks. They do the same thing in consumer lending as well.
They will always look at any means to justify raising rates as their costs go up. Pretty much how any business operates.
Too bad my current auto insurance carrier decided to jack my rates up $70 for no good reason (no claims with them EVER; no violations in the last 10 years). Time to start looking elsewhere.
Avoid Allstate.
Quote from: we vs us on May 31, 2010, 03:47:52 PM
The reason that health insurance and health care are now nearly synonymous is that health insurance is now a virtual necessity to receive care. Care is now so expensive that it's impossible to pay out of pocket and still remain solvent. Unlike car insurance, where most anyone can afford the minimum amount of required coverage. The two industries are similar in that they're called "insurance," but their relationship to the things they insure are very different.
I got a shot of antibiotics or steroids or something like that. They doctors office charged $80 for the shot. The insurance negotiated rate was $3.80. Sooo, yeah you are kind of screwed without insurance.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 09:54:40 AM
I got a shot of antibiotics or steroids or something like that. They doctors office charged $80 for the shot. The insurance negotiated rate was $3.80. Sooo, yeah you are kind of screwed without insurance.
I'm sure the mechanics of why this has happened is much more complicated, but the end result is that it's nearly impossible to get good care without insurance on your side.
For me, the whole argument about healthcare/insurance was who you wanted subsidizing your medical care: the government or private industry? The devil we know -- private industry -- has failed monumentally at the things private industry is supposed to give us: choice of provider, moderated pricing through competition, and efficient capital allocation. Instead it's given us bloated bureaucracy and price increases that far outstrip the rate of inflation. Why not try government?
Quote from: we vs us on June 01, 2010, 11:33:32 AM
I'm sure the mechanics of why this has happened is much more complicated, but the end result is that it's nearly impossible to get good care without insurance on your side.
For me, the whole argument about healthcare/insurance was who you wanted subsidizing your medical care: the government or private industry? The devil we know -- private industry -- has failed monumentally at the things private industry is supposed to give us: choice of provider, moderated pricing through competition, and efficient capital allocation. Instead it's given us bloated bureaucracy and price increases that far outstrip the rate of inflation. Why not try government?
Wevus, if you believe medical providers, they are saying it's the government who has made healthcare a more expensive proposition due to cutting Medicare and Medicaid procedure payments.
Insurance companies are subsidizing our health care. They are profiting off it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 12:13:35 PM
Wevus, if you believe medical providers, they are saying it's the government who has made healthcare a more expensive proposition due to cutting Medicare and Medicaid procedure payments.
Well, that's probably some of it but there're some other major drivers out there that are outside the gov's influence (worsening health in America, growth of private bureaucracy, aging of the population, etc.) Blaming Medicare and Medicaid is a lot like blaming Fannie and Freddie Mac for the entire mortgage collapse. IMO it overemphasises the effect that gov had to satisfy mostly ideological prejudices. I'm not denying they weren't/aren't part of the problem, but they're really only single cogs vast machine that's malfunctioning in multiple places.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 12:54:58 PM
Insurance companies are subsidizing our health care. They are profiting off it.
Just curious, do you think they shouldn't make a profit when they act as your intermediary to negotiate lower procedure costs?
Quote from: we vs us on June 01, 2010, 11:33:32 AM
For me, the whole argument about healthcare/insurance was who you wanted subsidizing your medical care: the government or private industry?
I would prefer that no one subsidize my healthcare, because that always entails making decisions on my behalf.
I would prefer that no one subsidize any part of my life. Unfortunately, employers got involved a long time ago. Employer sponsored plans were a perk, a benefit offered to high-end employees. Then it became a retention tool, designed to keep employees from leaving for higher wages. At this point, the quality of the plan became secondary to it's mere existence as employers fought over price, and insurance companies profit.
Now it has evolved into an entitlement. Employers can't hire a decent workforce without it. Individuals are priced out of buying it because they do not represent a group who's risks can be actuated and expenses shared.
On the other side of the cycle, doctors who used to be able to pick and choose what plans they accepted are forced to take lower payments in order to retain their patients. The insurance companies no longer evaluate the individual. They now assess the workplace according to groups. The guy down the hall from you with stage 3 prostate cancer makes your insurance more expensive. The cost of his care is spread amongst his co-workers.
Physicians are forced to run thousands of tests on patients every year, not because they are necessary or even indicated, but because they have to shield themselves from litigation from the insurance companies. Insurance companies spend billions of dollars every year on attorneys. Physicians spend billions on malpractice insurance that goes back to many of the very same insurance companies. When you look at the margin of the insurance industry it looks reasonable, because the hidden profiteers are the lawyers. The cost of medicine, insurance, and just general healthcare has been corrupted by the legal system's ability to feed off of the entitlement. So the sheep scream for government, blame physicians, employers, and insurance companies, and totally ignore the lawyers.
We are now on the road to taking this "modular" entitlement and making it a universal entitlement administered by the government. It will become far more expensive, with far lower quality, and much less choice. As individuals we used to represent a risk to the insurance companies. Now we become a liability to the government. In order to survive, the government will need to make decisions about your care. As patient #40489859 with lymphoma, you will be less valuable than patient #909484 with lymphoma because you are 4 years older, or you are unemployed. After all, the statistics show that you will have a lesser chance of survival than #909484.
In order to provide necessary insurance risk assessment, the government will need access to your medical records, drug history, and all of the information you share with your doctor. Someone in Washington, or more likely a computer designed to assess risk based on a health scoring system will determine your level of care based on your Health Score.
Wait Gaspar, someone will post within the next few hours about either malpractice settlement costs being equal to 1 to 2% of overall medical expenditures in this country. What that convenient little stat fails to denote is the additional testing costs for the CYA which is supposed to ward off Med Mal lawsuits, nor years where provider's have faced up to 15% increases in their MM insurance from the prior year, even without any claims of their own.
This article claims up to 10% of your procedure cost is for malpractice premiums:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/08/06/the_high_cost_of_medical_malpractice_97346.html
"Even though President Obama acknowledged defensive medicine's role in higher health costs in his speech before the American Medical Association, he did not propose any solutions. In fact, he specifically repudiated capping malpractice awards on the grounds that it would be "unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed."
The reason the president and congressional Democrats don't address malpractice is clear. In the 2008 election cycle, lawyers gave $233 million to political candidates: 76% went to Democrats and 23% to Republicans. Politicians know better than to bite the hand that feeds them.
Rather than attempting to expand litigation opportunities, Congress could use health reform legislation to give incentives to states to reduce malpractice costs, while still protecting patients.
Some states, such as Texas, are showing how to get malpractice costs under control. Since the state legislature passed a series of malpractice reforms several years ago, medical malpractice costs have plummeted, and numbers of doctors moving into the state have soared.
"There is a cause and effect here," said Grace-Marie Turner, president of the non-partisan Galen Institute in Washington, D.C. "Premiums with one malpractice insurance company have fallen by more than a third, allowing doctors and hospitals to reduce costs. About 7,000 physicians have moved into Texas over the last four years, and the state has backlogs of applications from other physicians wanting to move."'
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 01:12:12 PM
Just curious, do you think they shouldn't make a profit when they act as your intermediary to negotiate lower procedure costs?
We are getting screwed. No they shouldn't make a profit for basically privatized regulation. We are getting it in both ends.
QuoteWait Gaspar, someone will post within the next few hours about either malpractice settlement costs being equal to 1 to 2% of overall medical expenditures in this country.
Yes I anticipate that, but those are "settlement costs" and as we both know that represents only a tiny fraction of the legal burden. Our landscape is littered with the multi-million dollar compounds of malpractice attorneys. ;D
I just looked and my Yellow Pages includes 76 pages of attorneys that specialize in malpractice, and only 32 pages of physicians. Those attorneys get your insurance payment, one way or the other. The level of litigation is mind blowing.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 01, 2010, 02:30:35 PM
Yes I anticipate that, but those are "settlement costs" and as we both know that represents only a tiny fraction of the legal burden. Our landscape is littered with the multi-million dollar compounds of malpractice attorneys. ;D
I just looked and my Yellow Pages includes 76 pages of attorneys that specialize in malpractice, and only 32 pages of physicians. Those attorneys get your insurance payment, one way or the other. The level of litigation is mind blowing.
Viewed another way, it might be an indicator that people go where the money is.
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 02:23:24 PM
We are getting screwed. No they shouldn't make a profit for basically privatized regulation. We are getting it in both ends.
How do they exist without making a profit, then? I'm still not quite sure why it's a bad thing that an $80 shot was knocked down to $3.84 on your behalf.
Insurers also negotiate for better repair rates with body shops and parts manufacturers, roofing contractors, plumbers, etc. when it comes to property claims, yet no one seems to be calling that privatized regulation. You have insurance on yourself (government-mandated auto liability does not protect your property) and your property due to you either not being able to afford or not wanting to afford thousands or millions in medical costs, property loss, or a liability action against you.
Insurers take that risk off your hands and agree to make you or your property whole again in amounts many times your premium costs. You might be one of the people who pays out $100K or more in combined premiums in your lifetime and never files a claim of any sort. Or you could also be one of them who winds up having a few million paid out on your behalf. If you are willing to bet you won't need insurance and don't have a lender who requires it on your car or home, assume your own risk.
Personally, I'd rather wind up on the side of paying out well over $100K in premiums in my lifetime and hoping I don't ever have any major claims, especially medical.
I don't begrudge them for making a profit in a very risky business.
Quote from: we vs us on June 01, 2010, 02:47:06 PM
Viewed another way, it might be an indicator that people go where the money is.
Doctors don't want to spend time in depositions and attending trials. I would imagine, much like all other PI civil cases, that a high percentage are settled out of court just to make it go away. Greenmail if you will. Large multi-million dollar settlements are fairly rare. Attorneys can make a consistent living (cannon_fodder feel free to correct me) off of < $10,000 settlements day in and day out for essentially doing little more than writing letters, filing a suit, and making some phone calls to the insurers attorneys.
Quote from: we vs us on June 01, 2010, 02:47:06 PM
Viewed another way, it might be an indicator that people go where the money is.
Sure, but we're going to change that, right?
When it becomes the government who makes a poor medical decision on your behalf who do you sue? The doctor was just doing what the government advised, or agreed to pay him for. You will never get anywhere if you sue the government, they were providing the best care based on existing statistical data.
Something to ponder as we slouch forward.
We can always look at what other countries with government systems do. . .
In using "quality adjusted life years" per British pound to make treatment decisions, NICE (The National Institute for Clinical Health Excellence) mandates that Britain cannot afford to spend, except in unusual cases, more than $22,000 to extend a life 6 months. Sorry Nanna.
The Brits were promised there would never be rationing, as were the Canadians. . .
Quote from: Conan71 on June 01, 2010, 02:49:08 PM
How do they exist without making a profit, then? I'm still not quite sure why it's a bad thing that an $80 shot was knocked down to $3.84 on your behalf.
Insurers also negotiate for better repair rates with body shops and parts manufacturers, roofing contractors, plumbers, etc. when it comes to property claims, yet no one seems to be calling that privatized regulation. You have insurance on yourself (government-mandated auto liability does not protect your property) and your property due to you either not being able to afford or not wanting to afford thousands or millions in medical costs, property loss, or a liability action against you.
Insurers take that risk off your hands and agree to make you or your property whole again in amounts many times your premium costs. You might be one of the people who pays out $100K or more in combined premiums in your lifetime and never files a claim of any sort. Or you could also be one of them who winds up having a few million paid out on your behalf. If you are willing to bet you won't need insurance and don't have a lender who requires it on your car or home, assume your own risk.
Personally, I'd rather wind up on the side of paying out well over $100K in premiums in my lifetime and hoping I don't ever have any major claims, especially medical.
I don't begrudge them for making a profit in a very risky business.
Non-Profit. You still have jobs and people still work and make money. The difference between health insurance and car and property insurance is that health insurance is life and death. I do see your point. I think that auto insurance should be regulated as well. Since it is required by law. I don't think that somebody should make a profit from denying you procedures at least with a car you are just out money. The motive is completely wrong. Besides the "risk" is that you just close shop or just not pay claims out. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/state_farm_insi.html
The "risk" is just if you decide to pay. Which just like the rebate houses, the more, sneakier ways to deny claims, the better off your company is. Then you can charge less and companies are happier with a cheaper rate and you still make the same amount of money. The employees are faced with 1) crappy coverage or 2) they lose their very expensive form of compensation.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 01, 2010, 03:00:07 PM
Sure, but we're going to change that, right?
When it becomes the government who makes a poor medical decision on your behalf who do you sue? The doctor was just doing what the government advised, or agreed to pay him for. You will never get anywhere if you sue the government, they were providing the best care based on existing statistical data.
Something to ponder as we slouch forward.
We can always look at what other countries with government systems do. . .
In using "quality adjusted life years" per British pound to make treatment decisions, NICE (The National Institute for Clinical Health Excellence) mandates that Britain cannot afford to spend, except in unusual cases, more than $22,000 to extend a life 6 months. Sorry Nanna.
The Brits were promised there would never be rationing, as were the Canadians. . .
So if you don't have the money here its fine?
Quote from: Trogdor on June 01, 2010, 03:44:31 PM
So if you don't have the money here its fine?
I think he may be unaware of the relatively inexpensive private insurance available in the UK.
And Conan talking about medical malpractice insurance premiums rising? He might do well to check the statistics regarding the dollar value of malpractice claims over the same period. He would find that insurance rates increase without any corresponding increase in payouts.
I see that this will be a struggle for some. We are demanding "change" when what we need is reason. This battle may already be lost.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 01, 2010, 04:44:00 PM
I see that this will be a struggle for some. We are demanding "change" when what we need is reason. This battle may already be lost.
Your personal opinion does not define the limits of reason. I think you're wrong on a lot of things, but I think you come to those points of view through logic and reason. I'm certain you think I'm wrong about a lot of things, but I assure you I come to the conclusions I do the same way you do, just with different priorities and assumptions.