PatriotsReign

They guarantee us it won't result in an increase in gov't workers. The last thing this country needs if more federal employees to support.

I "might" consider it EVEN with increases in gov't employees "If"

1. they take their pensions away and run it like a private company.
2. Have benefits equal to the average private sector employee. (i.e. no 6 weeks vacation after 3 years and NO vacation carry-over year to year.
3. Make it as easy top fire them as it is in the private sector. (gov't employees must be as competitive as the private sector)
4. Have no quotas along racial lines.

I truly do support some reform and cost controls. I'll admit I have no idea WHAT changes need to be made (I don't think anyone does).
Finally, I do believe every American citizen deserves a minimum level of health care as a right.

If you want great benefits, they must be earned. Unmotivated dopes don't deserve them (not that all gov't employees are either, but some see gov't jobs as "I'm set for life" once they get them).

cupofjoe1962

I believe people should be able to buy affordable health insurance.
It should not be free, but it should be affordable.

I believe the only way to get this to work they first need to do something
to lower the Doctors malpractice insurance cost.
If you do not cap malpractice suits, your not going to get a system
that does not cost tax payers a bundle.

The question is..... Does Obama have the guts to take on the trial lawyers?

I have my doubts.

maverick4

First of all, there is no need to create two straight crappy threads about healthcare, where you offer little substance on either thread.

Second, the malpractice isn't the issue. Private insurance companies are making boat loads right now, and are the fiercest opponents to national health care. They keep lying that it will cost more and work less well, when every other national system costs less and their people live longer. They are the biggest loser in a future national health care system.

Patters

Tort reform would reduce medical expenses by no more than 2%. I've seen estimates as low as 0.5%, but am using a link that uses 2%:

Would tort reform make much difference in health care costs? Probably not: Analysis | National News - cleveland.com - - cleveland.com

How would you propose capping malpractice suits? If a doctor shows up overtired and causes a loss of oxygen to the patient's brain, who should be responsible for the life-long care costs? If a doctor is careless, and fails to properly suture a wound, which results in infection and death, how much protection do you want to give the doctor as opposed to the victim and his/her family? If a hospital fails to invest in necessary upgrades because of the cost, do you prefer that the hospital pay a capped amount (which would be cheaper than investing in equipment) or should the hospital have the choice of either risking steep legal fees or making necessary investments?

While I can understand your opposition to victims rights here, liberals tend to side with the victims, not the perpetrators. Of course, there is the occasional case that has an outlandish settlement, but that exists in every aspect of the law. Often CEOs who are fired get multimillion dollar settlement that pale in comparison to what an injured child might get, but conservatives apparently prefer to go after the little guy.

Perhaps you know what you're talking about and simply need to be more precise in what you're saying. But, as it stands, it sounds like you're siding with perpetrators because once in a great while our legal system fails and someone gets a lot of money for no good reason.

Patters

vThey guarantee us it won't result in an increase in gov't workers. The last thing this country needs if more federal employees to support.

I "might" consider it EVEN with increases in gov't employees "If"

1. they take their pensions away and run it like a private company. [/quote]

Do you mean run it like GM, Countrywide, Halliburton, WorldCom, Enron, etc.? You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the government is significantly less efficient than private enterprise, especially given that most debt is held by private enterprise and individuals, not by government.

Government jobs generally pay less than the private sector but offer some superior benefits. You prefer higher pay for government employees and fewer benefits?

Where there are union contracts, the government is bound just as private enterprise is. Do you oppose unions? Government can fire people and does. Ronald Reagan fired 11000 air traffic controllers and banned them from federal work for life (which Clinton rescinded), even though many of them were veterans. Is that the kind of thing you favor?

Do you support the same for private enterprise? How about a construction company that happens to be 95% white in an area where 25% of the population is black? I'm just trying to understand your point here to see if you're talking about the conservative terror of so called reverse discrimination.

Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? I would agree that tiny minorities of employees in both the private and public sectors have a sense of entitlement, but I think by and large Americans who work for government are the same as Americans who work for private enterprise.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

What century are you living in?

1) There are no more "govenment" funded pensions - there are TSP's which the employee contributes to him/herself - not unlike most private sector retirement plans. Government only allows to carry a certain amount, anyhow. Again, not at all unusual, no matter where you work.

2) 6 weeks after 3 years? Ummm, I don't think so. As to the "carry over" I had carry over vacation and sick time when I worked private sector - it's not all that unusual.

3) Ever try to fire a member of a Union?

4) I'll have to research this one - but I'll get back to ya on it, I promise.

As to undeserved salaries - try these on for size and then quit worrying about what a Grade 4 government employee makes (because it isn't much) and try to stay on topic - figure out where your health care premiums are really going - and why they're as high as they are.

* Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.
* H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - Total Compensation: $12,236,740.
* Angela Braly - WellPoint - Total Compensation: $9,844,212.
* Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - Total Compensation: $9,047,469.
* Michael Neidorff - Centene - Total Compensation: $8,774,483.
* James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - Total Compensation: $5,292,546.
* Michael McCallister - Humana - Total Compensation: $4,764,309.
* Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total Compensation: $4,425,355.
* Richard Barasch - Universal American - Total Compensation: $3,503,702.
* Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group - Total Compensation: $3,241,042.

Don't let Third Way, the Ben Nelson's or Republicans be the next Harry and Louise | Crooks and Liars

PatsFanInEaglesLand

You'll never seer it, your boy Obama is so indebted to the SIEU and AFSCME.

Anyone defending government employees is either one themselves or married to one.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BelichickFan

I don't see why this is the issue, PR. The issue is whether we should be spending $2T over 10 years to cut in half (not eliminate) the number of uninsured. It's a massive tax increase on everyone, forget the "$81B savings", that just means taxes will be increased by enough to pay for it + $81B.

We need to be looking at ways to lower health costs, that includes tort reform and it includes opening up insurance so we can select our policies. Most (probably all) of us just get to pick from pre made plans - why not let me make up my own policy, like car insurance, so I pay less but only get coverage for what I want. Instead of picking on health insurance we need to open them up to more competition and a "public option" isn't the best way to do that.

maverick4

This number is deliberately misleading and used, because they don't want people to look at how much less % of GDP the US will use if on nationalized care. Why don't they mention they're spending 30 Trillion over 10 years under a health system that is ranked terribly in life expectancy?

cupofjoe1962

You have a lot of really good points in your response.
I have not done the research, so I cannot counter your stats.

If a doctor makes a mistake they should be responsible for paying for
the victims long term care.

The Doctor should not be responsible for setting up the victims family in Beverly Hills.