Are countries providing "free" medical care deemed to be "socialist"?

[lazs2]

Tort reform won't do it?   How does anyone know?  So it's bad if you can't sue the insurance companies with huge rediculous lawsuits but good if the government runs things and limits lawsuits agianst them?

I have no problem with awardiong free medical insurance for life to people maimed by malpractice or in imprisoning doctors convicted of gross negligence.

Our doctors would probly make less mistakes if they didn't have to work twice as much in order to pay the 60 cents or so on every dollar they make to malpractice insurance.

medication would allso be half or less.

insurance would be cheap if you had the same sort of tort that socialized countries have.   You don't need to kill the entire private healthcare system in order to reform out of control healthcare costs.

can you imagine government run healthcare with it's AA doctors?

lazs

[Toad]

I know the CBO isn't always the most reliable source of information but there is the possibility that too much is being made of the benefits of tort reform with respect to patient medical charges.

Limiting Tort Liability for Medical Malpractice

Teaser: (You really need to read the whole thing though.)

More-recent studies have reached similar conclusions. A 2003 study that examined state data from 1993 to 2002 found that two restrictions--a cap on noneconomic damages and a ban on punitive damages--would together reduce premiums by more than one-third (all other things being equal).(11)

And based on its own research on the effects of tort restrictions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the provisions of the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003 (H.R. 5) would lower premiums nationwide by an average of 25 percent to 30 percent from the levels likely to occur under current law. (The savings in each state would depend in part on the restrictions already in effect there.)

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however.[/u]

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 like the idea of tort reform but I'm not sure it's going to really cut the cost of health care here.

[lazs2]

well... if doctors are paying 60% of their earnings out for insurance and they are not ever being sued....then tort and insurance reform needs to happen...

Also.. does that figure in the insurance and lawsuits for manufacturers of medicine?

either way... thiose things (reform)would happen under socialized mdicine... so why not do them first and see what happens..  It would certainly focus attention on the insurance providers if they continued to charge doctors at such rates after tort reform no?

lazs

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by Steve
a note on Healthcare:   All people w/in the U.S borders have access to urgent care. What most people w/out medical coverage do is walk into the E.R. every time they are sick.  There they get healthcare for free.

Source:  Steve's wife, trauma nurse and recent grad(I'm so proud of her)

I'd also like to add, that most physicians end up providing a lot of free care. Last year I collected on 20% of my billings on inpatient care at my local hospital. All the rest (80%) was written off. This might be bearable if I could get a tax break.

[Scatcat]

Originally posted by Torque
Oldest trick in the book used by insurance companies to cohort and raise the basic premiums across the board and then wait fer the public out cry forcing the politicians to levy caps on claims, rinse repeat for auto etc...

Corporation run healthcare, hows the milk tasting these days?

Very sour, thanks!:mad:

[strk]

Originally posted by lazs2
Tort reform won't do it?   How does anyone know?  So it's bad if you can't sue the insurance companies with huge rediculous lawsuits but good if the government runs things and limits lawsuits agianst them?

I have no problem with awardiong free medical insurance for life to people maimed by malpractice or in imprisoning doctors convicted of gross negligence.

Our doctors would probly make less mistakes if they didn't have to work twice as much in order to pay the 60 cents or so on every dollar they make to malpractice insurance.

medication would allso be half or less.

insurance would be cheap if you had the same sort of tort that socialized countries have.   You don't need to kill the entire private healthcare system in order to reform out of control healthcare costs.

can you imagine government run healthcare with it's AA doctors?

lazs

if the options are only private insurance or government single payer then the middle ground would be heavily regulated insurance industry - that would control costs of insurance and salaries/compensation of the insurance industry.

you see, it is the insurance companies and big corp who is behind the tort reform movement because they are the deepest pockets around.    For one thing, they expect to pay out X amount each year.  Second, no matter how bad they get hit, the top salaries are always huge.  

Now maybe there is a third way, and other methods too.  At any rate there are no easy answers.

[lazs2]

I don't care about the "top salaries" that is unimportant or... only of importance to the board of directors and stock holders... but..

tort reform and insurance reform would have to be done at the same time or if not... tort first.   insurance companies profits are public record.   If we took the socialist countries approch then we would limit suits and the insurance companies would be forced to lower rates.

If you wish for the federal government to be the insurance provider, as would be the case in socialized medicine, then you would most certainly have to limit lawsuits.  Tort reform would happen in any case.

probly the real difference in our lawsuits and the socialist countries is the difference in the perception...

easily duped people like yourself believe that the insurance companies have bottomless pockets and that you are "sticking it to the greedy buggers" every time you hand some one nutted burger flipper 200 million bucks.. whereas...

The juries in socialist countries are well aware that any settlement they give the victim comes out of their pocket.

lazs

[Rolex]

Companies and governments make sure everything comes out of your pocket, lazs2.

[lazs2]

Rolex... I agree wholeheatedly but at least with companies you have some competition.    Auto insurance has actually gotten cheaper.   Imagine if the government was the only car insurance company.

lazs

[mietla]

Originally posted by Rolex
Companies and governments make sure everything comes out of your pocket, lazs2.

Dell or HP can ask you to buy a computer from them, but it is still your call.

How is your IRS subscription doing? Ever thought of switching to a cheaper service?

[Vulcan]

Anyone else find Lazs attitude toward the healthcare system highly amusing?

 - I don't want to pay taxes towards healthcare, why should I pay for other peoples healthcare
 - I'd much prefer to pay medical insurance

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh the irony.

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Anyone else find Lazs attitude toward the healthcare system highly amusing?

 - I don't want to pay taxes towards healthcare, why should I pay for other peoples healthcare
 - I'd much prefer to pay medical insurance

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh the irony.

You obviously don't undertand the idea of voluntary, uncoerced choice.  I suppose in your country, if you're having a tough year and need your money for something else you can say "nah, I don't feel like paying my health care taxes this year.  I'll take my chances."  And I'm sure you can say "My government health insurance is a mismanaged, bloated bureaucratic nightmare that I pay too much for; I think I'll switch to the other mandatory government health care."  They let you do that, right?

The issue is being forced to pay for other people's health care, not voluntary risk sharing through insurance.

[Rolex]

What I mean't by "Companies and governments make sure everything comes out of your pocket...", as I'm sure most of you know, was that damage awards from deep pocket companies  sought after by vulchers, I mean lawyers, comes from the consumer eventually. There is just no escape. The consumers pay the bill and if the company goes chapter 11, the consumers and taxpayers are still left with the bill, or unpaid bills, as the case may be.

I don't think a rational health care system in the U.S. can be molded without tort reform and intellectual property right reform on drugs. In the meantime, it is a travesty that the people living in the richest nation on earth are in such poor health.

I'm not convinced that as any society becomes more advanced or civilized, health care should become more diverse in quality and availability. Health care should be part of the infrastructure and fabric of an advanced society. Cable TV is regulated by state and local authorities, (theoretically) representing the interests of the community, but health care is not? Which is more important?

Aw well. Glad my health care is so cheap... If I told you, you wouldn't believe it...

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Anyone else find Lazs attitude toward the healthcare system highly amusing?

 - I don't want to pay taxes towards healthcare, why should I pay for other peoples healthcare
 - I'd much prefer to pay medical insurance

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh the irony.

One is voluntary, one is involuntary.

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by beet1e
No government provided health care to speak of.

Where do you get this misinformation?