Welcome to PatsFans.com

Health Care Idea

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DaBruinz, Aug 27, 2009.

  1. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    Having looked for personal health care recently, I'd like to float an idea out to everyone to see what you think.

    One of the things that the insurance companies offer are a "community" health cooperative. Basically, what they do is they offer a plan in a particular city or group of cities at a particular rate. They try to get as many people in that area onto the plan to help spread the cost out. The idea being that the more people you have, the more bargaining power that you have to get better rates on everything from hospital care to prescription medication.

    I think that this would be a better way for the government to go. Use the collective bargaining power in each state to lessen the cost to Americans. They should be able to offer major medical plans for about the price of what companies charge their employees for medical insurance.

    To make things more competitive for the insurance companies, you make it a 4 or 5 year deal with a set rate across that time span. This will keep competition up amongst the insurance companies to try and keep costs low.

    What the government can't do is turn it into another Medicare debacle, which seems the course that they are intent on currently.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  2. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Good thoughts.

    We could also have more competition, stymied in part by legislation that forbids interstate health insurance offerings, as I've had it explained to me.

    And tort reform is desperately needed. I have an old girlfriend who delivers babies in Oregon as an MD. Her liability coverage is so expensive, it takes 32/33 deliveries a year just to pay that bill.
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    Tort Reform is an interesting buzzword..

    1. Do you want the initiative to come from the White House, as most if not all, decisions are made on the state level.. have the states do something.. there would be a conundrum if the White House got involved in states rights..

    2. Do you want the White House to tell local judiciaries what to do and how to handle these cases, sounds like an infrindgement of Executive/Judicial barrier...

    If Obama went this way, there would be another maestrom on the right, with all the socialist and nazi rhetoric..
  4. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,309
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +117 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    I would be more than willing to trade in my ability to sue for malpractice for a lower insurance rate, and I'm sure many others would too. Lets face it we all pay more so that the John Edwards of this world can run around and sue doctors for birth defects, that they had nothing to do with.
  5. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,309
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +117 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Yeah everyone would cry if Obama embraced tort reform, everyone on the left who bankrolled him that is......

    This country is in serious need of tort reform, first and foremost, LOSER PAYS.

    Secondly, if your lawsuit is found to be utterly baselessand frivilous by the presiding Judge, you pay your opponent triple what you originally asked for (including the gov't).

    Third TAX, 33% tax on all judgments (and 10 % tax on all out of court settlements) to pay for the justice system that supports it.

    Fourth, actual oversight of lawyers, by someone OTHER THAN LAWYERS.
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    That will fly:rolleyes::rolleyes:, probably solve a little less than nothing.. how do you impact the states, does the WH dictate what states should do???

    Did not realize that all lawyers were Democrats??? Another interesting factoid..
  7. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Uhhhhh....


    sounds like regional single payer, with a middle man.


    aka - a scam.

    Insurance companies do noting for payers and doctors, they just take money. Single payer is the only real reform. A public option is th eonly way to single payer. Anyone who tells you different is a moron, or paid by an insurance loby.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  8. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,717
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    Pennsylvania enacted auto insurance reform several years ago with this exact provision. When renewing your auto insurance, you have two options, one retains the right to sue for a higher premium, and the alternative waives the right to sue (you get your medical bills paid but no pain and suffering)) for a lower premium. No one is forced to do anything they don't want and it keeps all sides happy.....
    ---------------

    Back from vacation.......
  9. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey


    Tort Reform is imperative... Reform of malpractice lawsuits is also imperative...
  10. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 9 / -26

    But isn't that a state issue???
  11. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    The White House, Supreme Court and Congress have gotten involved on states rights on so many things, what difference does it make regarding Tort Reform...

    Obama doesn't have to TELL anyone anything. He can make the suggestion that individual states pass tort reform laws and give guidelines on how he thinks it should be done...
  12. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Many states have inacted "Tort Reform", not a single premium has gone down because of it. Its a talking point.

    http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

    What will happen to malpractice costs under national health insurance?

    They will fall dramatically, for several reasons. First, about half of all malpractice awards go to pay present and future medical costs (e.g. for infants born with serious disabilities). Single payer national health insurance will eliminate the need for these awards. Second, many claims arise from a lack of communication between doctor and patient (e.g. in the Emergency Department). Miscommunication/mistakes are heightened under the present system because physicians don’t have continuity with their patients (to know their prior medical history, establish therapeutic trust, etc) and patients aren’t allowed to choose and keep the doctors and other caregivers they know and trust (due to insurance arrangements). Single payer improves quality in many ways, but in particular by facilitating long-term, continuous relationships with caregivers. For details on how single payer can improve the quality of health care, see “A Better Quality Alternative: Single Payer National Health Insurance.” For these and other reasons, malpractice costs in three nations with single payer are much lower than in the United States, and we would expect them to fall dramatically here. For details, see “Medical Liability in Three Single-Payer Countries” paper by Clara Felice and Litsa Lambkros.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  13. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    I have news for you. All insurance companies are scams. They always have been. Always will be. Why? Because you are hedging your bet that you will use them and they are hedging their bets that you won't. Yes, they collect interest on the money and such. But, they also pay the astronomical bills that you don't see.

    And, I'm sorry, but your a MORON if you think that they don't do anything for the payer because I can tell you right now they do a LOT in terms of allowing people to seek affordable healthcare...

    Also, you have to be a moron to think that the GOVERNMENT RUN SINGLE PAYER system is the only form of reform than can be. Hell, I think its pretty clear that you don't even understand why health care expenses are so high to begin with. If you think its the insurance companies, you are sadly mistaken.
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Oh...I KNOW they are a scam...just look at the business model. Life insurance is a ponzi scheme, plain and simple. The last ones in will get screwed.

    However, most are regulated by states. Take auto insurance (minus states like NH). Most states REQUIRE you to carry insurance for your car. You are also guarenteed coverage. With healthcare, you can be dropped at anytime and your rate can go up for no reason. If auto insurance was allowed to work this way, they might drop you after you get a new stereo, feeling as it might increase your risk for accident. Or increase you payments because its Thursday.

    Bottom line is this FOR ME: Human life isn't a commodity that should be profited upon. Neither is death (war) but the powers that be, and the lobies that coerce them are in the business of dodging healthcare costs by denial of coverage, and building weapons of death.

    makes you ask what side they are on?




    but by all means...keep defending them.




    I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU.....all other nations have universal care, and ALL have private insurance. Yeah.....its true.



    I do certainly understand WHY healthcare costs are so high...it seems that you are the blind one. Its simple MATH..

    We spend twice the amount per person than any other nation on Earth.
    we have the 37th best care
    36 nations spend less at a rate of better than 50%, and get a better return on the cost.
    Our insurance compnaies profits have gone up at 3X the rate of inflation. The rates have gone UP, coverage has gone down. They insure the healthy and drop the sick.



    lets see....

    we spend more, get less and a middle man is getting rich?



    I suppose you still think the answer is tort reform, and a co-op.....




    gotcha.


    ever see a kid in the lunchroom give his milk money to a bully? ever wonder if that kid grew up and still has no milk?
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,778
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +170 / 4 / -4

    To me, insurance is private socialism. Under just about every model of insurance, the young, who often have little money and young children, are supporting the elderly, and in fact we are all supporting the indigent whose health care costs have to be factored in somewhere. Perhaps one can argue against all insurance on these grounds, but if we're going to have insurance, there is something socialistic about it, so why not have the government run it?

    After all, even with Medicare, if we had ended the bizarre restriction that prevented the gov from negotiating with pharmaceuticals, we would have saved billions of dollars. In addition, compared with private enterprise, government is vastly more transparent, and is subject to constant investigations by the MSM, the opposition party, and various right-and left-wing good government groups. I'd much rather have them run the program, but they also have to do a better job than Fannie Mae, GM, WorldCom, Enron, Bernie Madoff, Citibank, and countless others in managing their finances. At least the Democrats are willing to raise taxes, something that I think absolutely needs to be done given our sizeable deficit.
  16. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    Please provide examples of this reform in which you are referring..

    You should have put this in quotes, but anyways, there are some major flaws with the arguments they present in both papers....

    A few things.

    1) The assumption that malpractice awards will go down is not supported by either paper for the main reason that the countries in question do NOT have juries as part of their tort procedure. Canada, as a country, has a limit on damages that can be paid. To my knowledge, there is no such law here in the United States. There may be in individual states, but not on the whole. Sweden is not a valid example because they actually use 3rd party physicians to determine whether the claim has merit. Again, the US uses a jury. Denmark is different in that, again, they have 3rd party doctors involved in the process and not a jury.

    If the tort reform included the elimination of a jury trial, fine. Then you'd see malpractice awards go down. Until then, you will continue to see the public put the blame on doctors, hospitals and companies for things that aren't their responsibility. If you don't believe me, check out some of the "Stella Awards" (a women was awards a new Winnebago and 1.5 million because she decided that the cruise control on her RV meant she could go in the back and fix herself a sandwich while the RV was going 70 MPH.. Or the woman who won 15 grand from a furniture show room because she tripped and fell over her own unruly kid)

    2) This country can't improve the quality of its schools, yet we think that we can force the improvement of the quality of the hospitals.. Which do you think is more complex? The schools or the hospitals?

    3) I agree with the idea that hospitals need to improve their quality. All of them and strive to continue to improve on a regular basis. The problem with that is these pesky little things called human beings. You might have heard of them. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people in the health care industry who have grown tired of the broken system. So they have resigned themselves to "just doing their jobs" and not putting in the effort to improve. And a LOT of that stems from the financial burdens placed on them by the legal system. Until those are taken care of, you won't be able to truly improve the quality across the board.

    4) The idea that Universal Health Coverage is a Pre-Requisite for Improved Quality of care is joke. The person who wrote that should lose their medical license. Being in the commercial property insurance business, I've had the ability to visit several hospitals and all of the are working on improving the quality of care by: 1) not spending a lot of money 2) Focusing on improving the quality of employee through continued training 3) Minimizing the errors (and hence the claims) that are filed against them.

    They do that by posting the information, by department, for employees to see and then its the department supervisor's responsibility to improve on it.

    5) Some of the ideas presented in the first paper "A Better Wuality Alternative" are just plain incorrect in a mutli-hospital system like we have. The idea that because there might too many mammography machines in an area, that it would then increase the cost of each, individual mammography, is wrong. The mammography machines have fixed cost to purchase, but an variable cost in terms of maintenance. If you increase the use of the machines they currently have, then you will, invariably, increase the cost of the maintenance, which increases the cost of each mammography.

    Hospitals are not ZERO SUM entities. They need to make money so they can buy new equipment and repair the equipment they have currently. To think otherwise is just a fallacy.

    There are some good ideas in the papers, but they definitely don't take into consideration many important things. Particularly the differences in the laws from the Canada, Denmark, and Sweden to the United States. They also fail to take into consideration that no single hospital is large enough to handle being a "single High QUALITY" Total care facility. Its just not possible or practical.
  17. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    http://www.atra.org/files.cgi/8291_Record_12-08.pdf

    ATRA :: The American Tort Reform Association


    note...NO PREMIUMS HAVE GONE DOWN


    here is my boy Henry Waxman today....

    Truthdig - Reports - Waxman Gears Up for Health Care Showdown

    "Waxman has already begun by demanding that major insurance companies reveal how much they pay top executives and board members and, most important, the size of their profits from selling policies. [...]

    I asked Waxman whether he expected the insurance companies to reply to his letters. "Oh yes," he said. "When we write letters, we expect to get answers." And what was his purpose in seeking the information? At first, he was reluctant to discuss the investigation. Finally, he gave a guarded reply: that many folks perhaps take too benign a view of private insurance companies. [...]

    The letters from Waxman and his colleague, Bart Stupak, chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, went to every major insurance company, ranging from Aetna to Wellpoint. The lawmakers want to know the pay, stock options, perks, incentives, and retirement and other financial information of executives earning more than $500,000 a year. They are curious about the cost of promotional junkets. They are seeking disclosure of premiums, revenue, claims payments and sales expenses for health insurance policies. This includes sales to employers, individuals and the government. Interestingly, while insurance companies rail against the federal government, they earn money from participating in a number of federal programs, such as Medicare."
  18. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    *chuckle* Keep on being ignorant and thinking that I am defending the insurance companies. It just shows how much you don't comprehend the situation.

    So, tell me something. How are companies who develop medicines, procedures, new medical equipment and such, supposed to get the money to pay for that research?


    This is a nice bold faced lie on your part... Not all nations have health care and not all of them have both universal care and private insurance.


    Could you please provide where you get your facts from. Sorry, you already about one thing, I dont' expect you to be truthful on something like this..

    Please show me where I've said that the insurance companies aren't an issue? OH wait. You can't. Sucks to be you.




    Wow.. nothing like spewing more unsupported BS. You've provided NOTHING to make me believe that a single payer system would do a damn thing. The site you provided and the two particular pages you references both have glaring holes.

    You've yet to provide anything tangible on how tort reform wouldn't help. You just sit there and say "Because I said so."

    You've also not shown how an OPTIONAL CO-op is a bad thing.

    BTW, did you know that when people were touting the "40 million Americans are uninsured" they purposely included the over 10 million people who chose to NOT have health insurance. Did you also know that there are MANY people out there having children who CHOSE not to get their babies vaccinated. Yet they get included in the numbers of babies who haven't been innoculated because of lack of health care...

    I've mentioned health plans that are about $200 a month that are available NOW.. To anyone, regardless of pre-exisitng conditions. Yet people can't afford that. How are you going to give people a better plan without forcing others to take on an even bigger share of the burden than they already carry?

    Who is going to pay for the extra government bureaucracy that is going to be needed to over-see your plan? The government is already bigger than it should be..
  19. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    Maybe because there was still over 3.7 BILLION dollars paid out in claims in 2007... That can't have ANYTHING to do with it, can it?

    Medical Malpractice Payments - Kaiser State Health Facts



    Congress does not have the authority to demand those things from the companies. The only people have have the right to that information are people who own stock and the IRS. Congress can ask the IRS to launch an investigation if it feels that the insurance companies are committing fraud on their taxes. And Congress can ask the SEC to investigate them regarding the information published in their annual reports.

    The people who need to speak out against these companies are the stock holders. In the end, these CEOs and such have to answer to the stock holders.

    Unfortunately, until anyone can prove that the insurance companies are doing something illegal, there isn't much people can do.. But putting in a single payer system that the government runs isn't the answer. The government has shown that it can't do much of anything without wasting millions upon millions of dollars.

    Now, if the government wanted to change the way that it did business with these companies, its welcome to do that. And it should.

    Again, please show me where I have said that I support the insurance companies raping everyone of their hard earned money? You can't. But neither can you show me ANYWHERE that the claims awards will go down under a "single payer" system because of the laws currently in place here in the United States.
  20. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,208
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +289 / 18 / -43

    #50 Jersey

    \

    Raising taxes isn't the answer. You just refuse to accept it. Lets stop all the wasteful government spending instead. Imagine if we did that how much money could be saved.

    The government sucks are running things and aren't nearly as transparent as you claim them to be.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>