Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on May 19, 2004, 06:38:12 AM
-
I put the word FREE in quotes because no health care is free. By "free", I mean free at the point of sale.
There are three countries I'd like to consider, each with a very different economic model from the other two - you can add your country to the list. [list=1]- Norway - substantial natural resources of petrochemicals, high taxes but high standard of living, relatively small or even negligible nonproductive underclass, an excellent healthcare system in which money does not change hands between patient and doctor. Is Norway a socialist country? I wouldn't have considered it as such, but I don't know their rates of income tax and the rates of indirect taxation.
- USA - substantial natural resources of oil, grain, fruit/veg., livestock. Relatively low direct taxes compared with most other western countries. The population is polarised between very rich and very poor. No government provided health care to speak of. Health care benefits provided by employers (plans like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) are available to some, but not all, of the nationwide workforce. A substantial nonproductive underclass. High standard of living for those who want it, ie. prepared to work for it. Definitely not a socialist country.
- Britain - substantial oil resources, a substantial nonproductive underclass, taxes which were brought down to sensible levels in the 1980s have gone back up since 1997. Health care has been provided by the National Health Service (NHS) since 1948, instigated by the government of the day to improve the nation's health in the post-war years. As well as NHS care, some employers provide their employees with plans offering private care. Socialist? Certainly not in the Thatcher years. Before that, maybe. Since 1997? I would have to say no.
So which of these countries has the "best" system? The answer isn't obvious. Norway seems to have it made, but high rates of income tax might stick in the craw.
The USA has good hospitals, I am sure. But high costs for those whose plans do not cover the required treatment. For those who have no employment and therefore no health plan, the reality is grim indeed. In Chicago, for example, the last hope for some is the Cook County Hospital, an aberration of medical facilities where the most common cause of complications in pregnancy is gunshot wounds. (source - BBC documentary)
Britain has the NHS. It was a good idea in the beginning, but it is drowning in red tape and administration costs. The hospitals are dirty in some cases. Hygiene standards are questionable. But there is private care available, in first rate hospitals. The socialists hate that. But I feel that if I choose to spend a chunk of my money on private health care, I should not be obstructed in making that choice. Other people might choose to spend £50 a week on cigarettes - that's their choice.
The NHS isn't all bad. My younger niece lost her hearing at age 5, and then underwent surgery to have a cochlea implant fitted. It was pioneering surgery, and there were many hospital visits. Privately, the surgery plus implant plus processor would have cost £40,000. The NHS paid every penny. One wonders whether any private health plans would have picked up the tab for this.
Three health care models - take your pick.
-
The population is polarised between very rich and very poor.
What hogwash. Which manifesto did you get your information from?
-
Originally posted by ra
What hogwash. Which manifesto did you get your information from?
I think he meant tha the income classes area more heavily grouped at the extreme "polar" ends
But just go ahead and assume he means class warfare and call him a communist, that is more fun, right?
-
Originally posted by ra
What hogwash. Which manifesto did you get your information from?
I would not say it is completely polarized between the rich and the poor, but the gap is growing fast.
-
I am very biased here, but i think that everyone shold have the right to the same level of healthcare no matter what income you have. If you would like to have a low income job (those are often the same as healthcare workers, teaching and caring for the old) you should not be punished by having to use lots of your money on private healthcare and/or setteling for lesser quality care.
Education, healthcare, political freedom and security for ALL should be the basis of any modern society.......but all this comes at a cost.
I don't like paying taxes, but i don't like the alternatives either.
-
I wouldn't go as far as to say the US is a non-socialist nation either.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
I wouldn't go as far as to say the US is a non-socialist nation either.
Score one for a mixed market economy. My personal belief is that health care should be a basic human right.
-
staby.. a basic human right is that I pay for your healthcare? how does that work? The government should protect human rights... we have a RIGHT to defend ouselves and a RIGHT to free speech and a RIGHT to not have the government infringe on our freedom.
How is someone extorting money from me a human right? How long would the socialist countries last if they if they paid out millions every time a doctor removed the wrong testicle or bothed an operation?
How would the socialist countries do if they treated the same amount of illegal aliens that we do?
The U.S. system is the best. even if we went to socialist medicine we would still have to have tort reform to make it work.. we would still have to limit the amount of care.. On a practical note..Why bother? why would we destroy the best care in the world ?
If we had tort reform everyone could afford health care. But... they wouldn' t have to ... there would be no point.. every employer would provide the new cheaper healthcare as an incentive.
lazs
-
USA - substantial natural resources of oil, grain, fruit/veg., livestock. Relatively low direct taxes compared with most other western countries. The population is polarised between very rich and very poor. No government provided health care to speak of. Health care benefits provided by employers (plans like Blue Cross/Blue Shield) are available to some, but not all, of the nationwide workforce. A substantial nonproductive underclass. High standard of living for those who want it, ie. prepared to work for it. Definitely not a socialist country.
Actually we have this little thing called Medicare. If you are poor/unemployed/retired/single mother/disabled you can qualify for it. It's not the best but I would imagine that it's comparable to "free" govt healthcare elsewere as far as its goods and bads.
-
Oh.. and any emergency ward in the states is required to see apatient regardless of if they can pay or not.. this is health care provided by the rest of us... socialism.
lazs
-
Lazs who pays your army? I'm quite sure there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of tax payers who doesn't like the idea that their money will go for maintaining world's most powerfull army.
Who pays your roads? Are they all paid by their users, ie. by collecting road taxes at every cross road?
Who pays the salary of your police forces?
There has to be millions of law obeying people who hasn't or ever will be need help from cops? Why should theypay for something they don't need?
-
who pays your army?
The army does what the government wants, not what an individual taxpayer wants.
Who pays your roads?
Roads are built how and where the government wants, and speed limits are set by the government, not by individual taxpayers.
Who pays the salary of your police forces?
The police are government employees, they don't take orders from individual citizens.
Most Americans don't want socialized medicine because they already get good healthcare and they want some control over their medical care. The kind of control they don't have over the army, the roads, or the police.
ra
-
I always love being told that I and just about everyone I know do not exist.
BTW- Users of the roads do pay more in the form of registration fees and gas taxes.
-
staga. We formed our government with the power to create an army to defend the country. That is what is written.
I do not believe that the government has the right to create the roads using taxes. They tax us 34 cents a gallon and spend allmost none of it on roads. If private companies had control of that money, bid on the work, we would have far better roads. That is what I would like.
Police are paid by the states and counties and are budgeted out of those money's. There are very few federal police and those should be disbanded.
lazs
-
Police are paid by the states and counties and are budgeted out of those money's
Well it's good to hear it's not tax-payers money used in those (for some) un-needed services your communities are offering you but the money comers from states and counties :)
-
I don't think any nation spends as large a percentage of GDP on heathcare as the USA, however there are nations who provide a level of heathcare approaching that of the US model at a significantly lower cost. There's probably a message here.
Lazs, I find it amusing that you rail against socialism in other countries but don't even mention the level of corporate welfare in your own country. Or doesn't corporate welfare count as socialism by your definition?
-
I think comparing healthcare efficacy or the cost effectiveness of different systems without having been a participant in each of them is akin to commenting on a book you have not read. :rolleyes:
-
laz in public healthcare your tax dollars pay for your healthcare and when you figure out the amount of money that goes out of your taxes and into your healthcare it is far less than what you would normally have to pay...
also (this may be different in usa) roads are built and maintained by private companies working under contract...and if your roads are in poor condition its because theres a labour crew shortage...
ra...how do individual tax payers determine what hospitals do? all they do is use the services.
-
Originally posted by strk
I think he meant tha the income classes area more heavily grouped at the extreme "polar" ends
I think you're wrong.
Define your income classes and then give us the grouping.
The idea that the US is made up of ~ 300 million extremely poor or extremely rich people is laughable.
This is where "middle class" got it's name.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I High standard of living for those who want it, ie. prepared to work for it.
Dang, there's always a catch isn't there?
Where'd this "work for it" idea come from, anyway?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The population is polarised between very rich and very poor.
we have the one of largest middle class's in the world
[/i]No government provided health care to speak of. [/QUOTE]
Medicare, medicad, Health net, just to name 3 off of the top of my head that are government and free.
[/i]The USA has good hospitals, I am sure. But high costs for those whose plans do not cover the required treatment. For those who have no employment and therefore no health plan, the reality is grim indeed. [/QUOTE]
Greem?,, ?,, no hospital can refuse care based on inability to pay, walk in get care, that's how it works, and is why many Hospitals in the South east are bankrupted due to the illegal Mexicans flooding the country 13,000 daily.
[/i]In Chicago, for example, the last hope for some is the Cook County Hospital, .....the most common cause of complications in pregnancy is gunshot wounds. (source - BBC documentary)
[/QUOTE]
This has got more to do with ethnic brake down the free care.
-
ra...how do individual tax payers determine what hospitals do? all they do is use the services.
Or they don't use the services. Individuals can usually choose their own doctors and hospitals, or at least have some input into their own family's heath care decisions. And health care services are available in other places than just hospitals.
-
I think he nailed the district of columbia right on the head.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Lazs, I find it amusing that you rail against socialism in other countries but don't even mention the level of corporate welfare in your own country. Or doesn't corporate welfare count as socialism by your definition?
Of course it does. Any coerced reallocation of the nation's/citizens' capital is socialism and undermines the free market. I'd like to get rid of all corporate tax breaks (hell, personal tax breaks too) and other "corporate welfare" asap, but unfortunately our political system's suceptability to big money interests make that difficult.
Socialism implies that some ******* politician in Washington or Lansing (my state's capital) knows what to do with my money better than I do. I find the idea extremely insulting.
-
Beetle have a boring morning at work again?
-
work?? .....lol thats a waste of valuable time.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Well it's good to hear it's not tax-payers money used in those (for some) un-needed services your communities are offering you but the money comers from states and counties :)
???? Uh... so you think the only time you are using the police force is when you call them? Or they stop the guy infront of you for speeding?
The very existence of a PD is benifited by everyone in the community. "Fear" of force and / or imprisonment is a deterent for crime. If the PD wasn't in the community, it would be a very dangerous place to live. period
-
LOL.... this is beyond silly... what some of you seem to be saying is that we could get better or equal health care by letting the government run the program.
What all of you are not factoring in is that in the socialist countries if you did not have limits on how much you could sue for then your systems would be broke in a year.
Conversely... most of the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is malpractice costs. there is no point in talking any cost reform without talking tort reform and if we get tort reform the whold subject will be moot... there is no need to trash our system and burden our taxpayers with socialist medical care if the cost of healthcare is halved or better.
Staga... I would even be for the cities contracting out for police and fire and other services... the trend is towards that... Also.. for vouchers in schools. It would cost us much less.
Corprate welfare? I am not for corprate welfare either. But... If I have to prioritize my tax monies then I would obviously rather have corporations recieve tax benifiets than social programs that do nothing but grow the government. At least the corporations return something to me as a stock holder or consumer say.
As for tax benifiets for corporations... lets not be hypocrites here... we all want to do it.. we give tax breaks on a local level every day and are glad to do it.. we do it to attract bussines to our state or city.. we do it so that they will in turn bring in revenue for us. You can call this "trickle down" if you like but it is standard operating practice. We extort less money from bussines in order to have them locate with us and all of you/us are a part of that and glad of it....
so can the cliche knee jerk "corprate welfare" line as used in defense of socialism.
lazs
-
Beet1e what is your bosses E-mail addy?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
But... If I have to prioritize my tax monies then I would obviously rather have corporations recieve tax benifiets than social programs that do nothing but grow the government.
Worse than that.
By taking away an incentive to work, it turns armies of potentially productive people into a permanent underclass completely dependent on the socialist politicians who feed them at the expense of the productive members of the society.
"Liberal vote factory", thats all.
Competent and independent people are a threat to the big government.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Worse than that.
By taking away an incentive to work, it turns armies of potentially productive people into a permanent underclass completely dependent on the socialist politicians who feed them at the expense of the productive members of the society.
"Liberal vote factory", thats all.
Competent and independent people are a threat to the big government.
lol...so thats why our socialist country have so little unemployment. :D
Something is very wrong with your conclusion there Mietla.
-
Erm... well "polarised" was a bad choice of wording in my initial post. The disparity of fortune between America's richest and America's poorest is much greater than the disparity of fortune between Britain's richest and Britain's poorest, or Norway's richest and Norway's poorest; though clearly there is a large swathe of middle classes in between those extremes in all cases.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Something is very wrong with your conclusion there Mietla.
I've made three statements:
- unconditional, "no questions asked" welfare kills the work ethic?
- self-suficient and productive people are against the big government?
- people dependent on the government vote for the bigger government and more socialism?
Which one is wrong?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
lol...so thats why our socialist country have so little unemployment. :D
I've lived in Poland for the most of my life.
Everybody was employed, no one worked.
Everybody was paid, no one has earned anything.
-
ok.... that does'nt apply here (unless you work in the goverment :D )
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The disparity of fortune between America's richest and America's poorest is much greater than the disparity of fortune between Britain's richest and Britain's poorest, or Norway's richest and Norway's poorest;
Don't want to argue whether it is true or not, but why would a greater gap be bad and a small gap good.
Does it follow that no gap (communism) is the best, or is there a "optimal" gap?
If it is the latter, what is it?
-
One more question Beetle1, is this the governemnt's role to control/enforce tha gap?
-
Originally posted by mietla
Don't want to argue whether it is true or not, but why would a greater gap be bad and a small gap good.
Does it follow that no gap (communism) is the best, or is there a "optimal" gap?
If it is the latter, what is it?
There has to be some uneployment or else companies cant choose the best people when they need them..competition for jobs is a good thing. Other than that i dont think its anthing wrong with people making a good living even if they dont have the prestige jobs. But as i said...there should be a difference so you wont settle for less than you can be.
-
You did not address the issue.
Is there an optimal income gap?
Is is government job to define it and enforce it?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
d... so you wont settle for less than you can be.
The only entity with power to make you settle is the government. In a free market economy you'll always get as high as you deserve.
-
Originally posted by mietla
You did not address the issue.
Is there an optimal income gap?
Is is government job to define it and enforce it?
I hope so
Yes...market and goverment (see below) sets that.
To a sertain degree....its called minimum vage etc.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Don't want to argue whether it is true or not, but why would a greater gap be bad and a small gap good.
Does it follow that no gap (communism) is the best, or is there a "optimal" gap?
If it is the latter, what is it?
Mietla! Would love to discuss this with you over vodka in CA - maybe next minicon?
On earnings, I think the sky should be the limit, ie no limit. Socialised medicine should be a safety net, not more.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mietla! Would love to discuss this with you over vodka in CA - maybe next minicon?.
You got it.
-
Next time you are in the States Beet let me know. I'm going to meet you and force you to say "I'm wrong" even if I have to put bamboo splinters under your nails. :p
Then will have a drink or 6 and laugh at all the stuff we've said on the BBS.
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)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Conversely... most of the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is malpractice costs.
lazs
Please provide proof of this outrageous claim. Health Insurance Comp had record profits last year. You arent maybe a lobbyist for them are you? :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Conversely... most of the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is malpractice costs.
Taken as a figurative statement, Lazs makes a worthy point. I read the first two books by Lee Iacocca (http://www.emediaplan.com/admunch/Biographies/LeeIacocca.asp) - arguably one of the best presidents the US never had. (Well, him and Barry Goldwater.) In one of his books, Iacocca speaks of what has happened to health care in the US. OK, the books are almost 20 years old now and changes have occurred since. But the example he gave was the cost of vaccination against diphtheria. The shots for that used to cost around 50 cents, but had risen to $12 or more because the vaccine producers had to guard against malpractice suits by doing a lot of extra tests and paying insurance premiums in case they got landed with a malpractice suit. I remember this one because my brother had a very bad reaction to his diphtheria vaccination and was very unwell. The doctor advised that he would not be able to receive a smallpox vaccination because it could kill him. That was in the 1950s and I'm sure it never entered my parents' heads to think of suing the doctor or anyone else for the illness by brother suffered. But times have changed and nowadays everyone is suing everyone else - figuratively speaking, of course.
Steve - I'm going to buy 10 thimbles today in readiness for my next US trip. Are you saying that the ER at any US hospital will administer emergency medical treatment to anyone who can't pay? Hope you like my sig. :D
-
Are you saying that the ER at any US hospital will administer emergency medical treatment to anyone who can't pay?
My understanding is they will treat anyone, but will persue you for the costs afterwards.
-
Are you saying that the ER at any US hospital will administer emergency medical treatment to anyone who can't pay?
Yes, as I understand it, and as Stacy has told me, no-one will be turned away from Emergency room treatment, it is how illegal immigrants recieve their "healthcare". Stacy says they bring their kids to the ER for earaches.... can't go anywhere else.
They give false names, addresses so they cannot be pursued for the bill.
I'm going to buy 10 thimbles today in readiness for my next US trip.
Rats! Foiled again.
Hope you like my sig.
Good humor.
:D
-
shlotz... Are you saying that there are multimillion dollar suits against doctors and drug manufactures in your country every day?
silat... are you serious? you don't know this? of course insurance companies make a profit... they simply raise rates on the health care providers who raise their rates. It is you and I who are paying for all the lawsuits. Malprctice insurance is allmost allways a higher amount than earnings for doctors and for drug companies.
Iif you take out the lawsuits the insurance would be cut to less than half...
beetle... you cannot be refused at the emergency room of any hospital unless it is private. Even then... you are required to be treated for life threatening illness or injury... they will indeed come after you for compensation tho... often settling for a third or less of the cost. This factors into the cost of our healthcare.
lazs
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
My understanding is they will treat anyone, but will persue you for the costs afterwards.
Only if they can find you (you gave them real address) and if you have money.
-
I have a friend, John Smith of 1234 Main Street, Anytown, USA 703-555-1212.
He never pays for care from Emergency Rooms. Never.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No, but perhaps you should explore the reason why there aren't multimillion dollar suits against doctors and drug manufacturers in Norway every day. It is not because people aren't allowed to sue for millions if they want to.
Is it because Norweigan doctors never make mistakes? Or because your legal system doesn't let lawyers run rampant like a fox in a henhouise?
-
If guilty our courts (I believe same goes with Norway, not sure about Sweden thought) can and will convict person/enterprice/community for compensation and surcharge but enormous punitive sanctions aren't used here (thank god).
-
And that is my point.... No healthcare can work in this country withour first addressing the tort problem... and... if the tort problem is under control then there is no healthcare problem... without the reform there is no solution.
torque.. insurance companies work on a profit margin... they also have to compete. It is illegal for them to collude with each other. Are you saying that insurance should be run by the government? Like the well run medicare and social security perhaps? big savings there huh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And that is my point.... No healthcare can work in this country withour first addressing the tort problem... and... if the tort problem is under control then there is no healthcare problem... without the reform there is no solution.
torque.. insurance companies work on a profit margin... they also have to compete. It is illegal for them to collude with each other. Are you saying that insurance should be run by the government? Like the well run medicare and social security perhaps? big savings there huh?
lazs
tort reform aint gonna get you all the way there, and it is hard because you need to make it so people who are really wronged can get compensation.
tort reform really favors big companies so it is very suspect. Look at the people behind it.
insurance companies carry blame for health care costs too, as does the AMA and Big Pharma. Lots of money there.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well obviously since we're a much smaller country there are fewer mistakes made, but that is not the only reason. Lawyers can run rampant as much as they want, but the courts won't award a huge compensation unless it is warranted. In addition in cases were the plaintiff needs care, or other forms of help to function in life, the state provides it (us being socialists and all) at no cost to the plaintiff, so most of the enormous cost of living for disabled people (for instance) is covered, and does not factor in the compensation. We have had cases that ended up with millions in compensation, but they are very few and far apart.
Edit: And of course jail term sentences for medical malpractice also helps.
state provided medical coverage means companies dont have to cover it, too. Jail for med mal? wow
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Of course. If you ruin somebody's life because of incompetence or irresponsibility during an operation you are just as guilty of a crime as if you injured him/her with your car while driving recklessly.
That's what we need here. Not the rediculous law suits for millions that really does nothing for society in general.
-
NOOOooo, That road takes you to socialism!!!
:D
-
Originally posted by strk
tort reform aint gonna get you all the way there, and it is hard because you need to make it so people who are really wronged can get compensation.
tort reform really favors big companies so it is very suspect. Look at the people behind it.
insurance companies carry blame for health care costs too, as does the AMA and Big Pharma. Lots of money there.
"Lots of money there" That is why tort reform "really favors big companies" nobody sues Joe Schmuck, MD for 350 billion, cause he makes only $130k, and still owes on his student loan; he will just declare bankruptcy.
Instead sue Bristol Meyers Squibb and better yet go after tobacco companies, McDonalds, Ford and Liquor producers. They might not be 2% at fault for your predicament, but they have deep pockets. The 85 year old retiree who funds her life based on stock value can afford it.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0)
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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
-
Companies and governments make sure everything comes out of your pocket, lazs2. :p
-
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
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Companies and governments make sure everything comes out of your pocket, lazs2. :p
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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... :eek:
-
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.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No government provided health care to speak of.
Where do you get this misinformation?
-
vulcan... thenm why not government socialized car insurance?
At work I have a choice of three plans that all have different bennies. I have choices of doctors and plans. Why would I want a one plan fits none socialized medicine?
lazs