The Poorhouse: Aunt Winnie, Glenn Beck, And The Politics Of The New Deal

[doc111]

Here is what you need to understand about me.

I dont think healthcare is a right.

I dont believe you should be able to sue a doctor for anything but criminal negligence.

I do not believe so because you have to confiscate funds from one person and give them to another for care and I consider that a re-distribution of wealth.

Now, we have a system where you pay money to a bookie to ensure that you dont become financially ruined due to a major health issue.

First of all I would like the government to be completely removed from healthcare. Healthcare is simply goods and services that should be offered to the patients directly and not through a 3rd party provider. This would eliminate 99% of the paperwork and 99% of the fraud. The reason for this is that the payments would be point of sale transactions.

Take Lasic surgery for example. The prices are posted up front and the procedures are cash register transactions where the patient pays directly at the time of the service. The prices have been dropping ever since the technology was developed. The prices continue to drop because there is intense competition for those patients. A hundred dollar difference in the surgery between company 'A' and company 'B' may make the decision. Due to this competition the companies are forced to be honest about keeping the costs down. It is the way the free market works. If somebody makes a huge profit on something then other people come in and undercut the price or develop a cheaper product to compete. The great thing about it is the economic mechanism is self regulating.

Now, if you could sit down and clearly see that your liver surgery would be 60K at hospital 'A' and 90K at hospital 'B' you might have alot more information about your medical costs and choices about what services you may want.

Also, doctors should be able to group together and provide private insurance. There have been private tests of a system like this and it is enormously popular and far cheaper than normal health plans. You pay for your basic care on a monthly basis or at point of payment and if you have emergency medical issues they are taken care of as part of the insurance. Because there is no 3rd party provider the paperwork is eliminated. Again, paperwork and regulation are HUGE burdens on healthcare.

Also, we have to understand that doctors are human and I think that nuisance lawsuits cause an enormous cost on the system. Therefore, I would say that unless a doctor is criminally negligent you should not be able to sue them. Our politicians have that protection, why cant our doctors? I would recommend a board of medical review to assess all complaints and have the ability to sanction doctors or remove their licenses for lesser offenses but would shield them from prosecution. The way the system is now, if a surgery does not work 100% it opens the doctor up to a lawsuit even though the risks are known in advance.

Finally, we have to understand that the medical ability to save a life has become far in excess of what it once was in terms of both ability and cost. What that means is that no matter what the government tells you, there is no way to provide 100% quality care for 100% of the population through a reasonable amount of taxation. It is simply impossible.

So, just like poor people cannot buy a mercedes benz and just like poor people cannot buy a 20 room mansion, the poor cannot expect society or the government to shell out millions of dollars per each person's individual health care.

The whole system is completely broken just like immigration, taxation, etc. Somehow you think the government can fix the monster they created and make it better (show me a government program where this has happened) or... we can force the government, insurance companies and lawyers out of the system. Then maybe we can shave a zero off of all of the medical bills in this country and allow many more people to actually pay for healthcare out of their pockets.

Originally healthcare was offered through business as a BENEFIT of employment. Now the government is forcing companies to pay it as a RIGHT. The direction we are going is unconstitutional and will only lead to higher prices and lower care.

When I was born, my parents paid for the delivery and hospital stay out of pocket. It was in the 3 digits. I'm really not that old either. Insurance back then, was in case of a catastrophic illness or injury. One that might keep you in the hospital for weeks or months and require multiple surguries or other extreme measures. In less than half a century we've gone from affordable, reasonably priced, medical care to what we have now.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

You'll have to understand my frustration with watching an effort to increase the effectiveness of government and decreasing the debt sacrificed and diluted under the pretense of "smaller government". That is the popular mindset I see in the tea party/libertarian ranks. I see no compromise, practicality, or level-headedness in their arguments. I see a lot of posturing, fear mongering, beehive stirring, and emotional manipulation more than anything else. Smells like politics, ironically what they are crusading against. We'll see however. Politics are indeed real, and I respect a good politician when I see one. I actually like haley barbour, lindsay graham, and scott brown (proving to be more pragmatic than libertarian). I just don't see people equipped with the tools needed to operate in a political environment in the tea party. They may be good at hyping up a town hall filled with their sympathetic constituents, but when they are among elected peers, I am eager to see if they have the substance needed to give and take while managing their volatile and unforgiving electorate. 2011 will be a real test for libertarians.

Regarding the hair dryer, i suppose that better displays the overall mindset of our population, and the amount of attention it pays to important things. Like sleeping with open air heating elements. Apparently someone burned in bed with a hair dryer, and sued the shit out of a whole bunch of people. Lawyers trump the law now, and boom, another warning or stipulation is born, judicially none the less.
Funny as hell though.

I certainly don't speak for all libertarians but when I say I want 'smaller government' it's sort of all encompassing. Yes, I believe government needs to become more efficient. They need to reduce waste and fraud. In my eyes, reducing spending is tantamount to reducing the size and influence of government. Some regulations are prohibitive and serve no purpose other than to extract fees and fines from people and businesses and create a maze of red tape that has become nearly impossible to navigate. We can't protect everyone from everything and IMO we shouldn't. Have you read some of the warnings on products these days? My wife bought a hair dryer that actually warns her against using it while sleeping!!!!! Sleeping?????? Seriously??? Of course we need regulations but we need to evaluate which ones serve to protect us and which ones are sucking us dry. Look, you're never gonna make everyone happy. Especially in a country of over 300 million people, it's just not possible to please everyone.

 

[NLXSK1]

I just want to throw a point out there for people to think about...

If someone can get the government to pay 80,000 dollars for a procedure, why wouldnt they take it?

If instead, that procedure was offered for 80,000 dollars in the private market and only a few people could pay for it... How long before private industry would figure out how to make that procedure 40,000 or 20,000 just to be able to provide it to make a profit on it?

 

[doc111]

You'll have to understand my frustration with watching an effort to increase the effectiveness of government and decreasing the debt sacrificed and diluted under the pretense of "smaller government". That is the popular mindset I see in the tea party/libertarian ranks. I see no compromise, practicality, or level-headedness in their arguments. I see a lot of posturing, fear mongering, beehive stirring, and emotional manipulation more than anything else. Smells like politics, ironically what they are crusading against. We'll see however. Politics are indeed real, and I respect a good politician when I see one. I actually like haley barbour, lindsay graham, and scott brown (proving to be more pragmatic than libertarian). I just don't see people equipped with the tools needed to operate in a political environment in the tea party. They may be good at hyping up a town hall filled with their sympathetic constituents, but when they are among elected peers, I am eager to see if they have the substance needed to give and take while managing their volatile and unforgiving electorate. 2011 will be a real test for libertarians.

Regarding the hair dryer, i suppose that better displays the overall mindset of our population, and the amount of attention it pays to important things. Like sleeping with open air heating elements. Apparently someone burned in bed with a hair dryer, and sued the shit out of a whole bunch of people. Lawyers trump the law now, and boom, another warning or stipulation is born, judicially none the less.
Funny as hell though.

But I see many of the same things you've mentioned coming from the progressives' camp. Here is a prime example of what I'm talking about:


[video=youtube;u46QoT_eNQ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u46QoT_eNQ8[/video]


These same tactics are used by both sides. This is just one example. Now, we could trade soundbites all day long, but what does it actually solve? I understand your frustration. I've been from one end of the political spectrum to the other. I believe we've been royally fucked in the ass by both parties and it's time for a change. I wouldn't mind seeing any third party win the white house at this point, if only to send a message that the people are in control and are fed up with the status quo. I'm afraid that this too is pie in the sky at least for the forseeable future.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Your dead wrong, and short of england/canada, private market with a public option, government regulated health care has proved to both driven down costs and increase care.
I provided that data. It stands, there is no data to contradict that.

Those poor people who don't have health coverage still go to the hospital, and we pay for it. You forgot to solve the problem that your suggestion would proliferate the most, at the highest cost to us.

And health care is provided through a third care provider, its called health insurance. Those insurance companies like profits, and that is why they don't cover the elderly. Hence medicare.

It sounds to me you just love watching people who are poor just die and suffer. Old people too.

Here is what you need to understand about me.

I dont think healthcare is a right.

I dont believe you should be able to sue a doctor for anything but criminal negligence.

I do not believe so because you have to confiscate funds from one person and give them to another for care and I consider that a re-distribution of wealth.

Now, we have a system where you pay money to a bookie to ensure that you dont become financially ruined due to a major health issue.

First of all I would like the government to be completely removed from healthcare. Healthcare is simply goods and services that should be offered to the patients directly and not through a 3rd party provider. This would eliminate 99% of the paperwork and 99% of the fraud. The reason for this is that the payments would be point of sale transactions.

Take Lasic surgery for example. The prices are posted up front and the procedures are cash register transactions where the patient pays directly at the time of the service. The prices have been dropping ever since the technology was developed. The prices continue to drop because there is intense competition for those patients. A hundred dollar difference in the surgery between company 'A' and company 'B' may make the decision. Due to this competition the companies are forced to be honest about keeping the costs down. It is the way the free market works. If somebody makes a huge profit on something then other people come in and undercut the price or develop a cheaper product to compete. The great thing about it is the economic mechanism is self regulating.

Now, if you could sit down and clearly see that your liver surgery would be 60K at hospital 'A' and 90K at hospital 'B' you might have alot more information about your medical costs and choices about what services you may want.

Also, doctors should be able to group together and provide private insurance. There have been private tests of a system like this and it is enormously popular and far cheaper than normal health plans. You pay for your basic care on a monthly basis or at point of payment and if you have emergency medical issues they are taken care of as part of the insurance. Because there is no 3rd party provider the paperwork is eliminated. Again, paperwork and regulation are HUGE burdens on healthcare.

Also, we have to understand that doctors are human and I think that nuisance lawsuits cause an enormous cost on the system. Therefore, I would say that unless a doctor is criminally negligent you should not be able to sue them. Our politicians have that protection, why cant our doctors? I would recommend a board of medical review to assess all complaints and have the ability to sanction doctors or remove their licenses for lesser offenses but would shield them from prosecution. The way the system is now, if a surgery does not work 100% it opens the doctor up to a lawsuit even though the risks are known in advance.

Finally, we have to understand that the medical ability to save a life has become far in excess of what it once was in terms of both ability and cost. What that means is that no matter what the government tells you, there is no way to provide 100% quality care for 100% of the population through a reasonable amount of taxation. It is simply impossible.

So, just like poor people cannot buy a mercedes benz and just like poor people cannot buy a 20 room mansion, the poor cannot expect society or the government to shell out millions of dollars per each person's individual health care.

The whole system is completely broken just like immigration, taxation, etc. Somehow you think the government can fix the monster they created and make it better (show me a government program where this has happened) or... we can force the government, insurance companies and lawyers out of the system. Then maybe we can shave a zero off of all of the medical bills in this country and allow many more people to actually pay for healthcare out of their pockets.

Originally healthcare was offered through business as a BENEFIT of employment. Now the government is forcing companies to pay it as a RIGHT. The direction we are going is unconstitutional and will only lead to higher prices and lower care.

 

[NLXSK1]

Your dead wrong, and short of england/canada, private market with a public option, government regulated health care has proved to both driven down costs and increase care.
I provided that data. It stands, there is no data to contradict that.

Can doctors be sued in Switzerland, England and Canada like the US? You show certain statistics while ignoring other portions of the equation to prove your points.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I said that tort reform is necessary, read original post again.

 

[NLXSK1]

I said that tort reform is necessary, read original post again.

Yes, but if we just did tort reform, how much lower would our costs already be?

That is where the argument gets muddy.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Verbatim: tort reform will play an important role as well.

Last I checked though, tort reform's absence hasn't been the driving factor of health care costs, it's a part, but far from the majority. Most of the money ends up in pharma, and health insurers.

 

[doc111]

Your dead wrong, and short of england/canada, private market with a public option, government regulated health care has proved to both driven down costs and increase care.
I provided that data. It stands, there is no data to contradict that.

Those poor people who don't have health coverage still go to the hospital, and we pay for it. You forgot to solve the problem that your suggestion would proliferate the most, at the highest cost to us.

And health care is provided through a third care provider, its called health insurance. Those insurance companies like profits, and that is why they don't cover the elderly. Hence medicare.

It sounds to me you just love watching people who are poor just die and suffer. Old people too.

Your "data" doesn't talk about how many people are waiting months for care that often comes too late. It also doesn't talk about how some ER's in Canada are falling apart and smelling like urine. There are always unintended consequences. You simply cannot give government control of healthcare without some negative things happening as a result. Government does a very few things well. Healthcare is not one of them IMO! I've worked in healthcare for over 20 years and I've been in many VA hospitals. They have improved but they are still mostly shitholes. I'm here to tell you that there will be rationing! There will be "death panels" or whatever PC term they are applying to them now. If I thought for one second that any of this would make the situation better, I'd be 100% for it. I don't believe it will and I have many years of experience in the field to back up that opinion. Look, there are many unknowns. Even the brightest of the bright cannot predict how all this will play out. And for the record, I was a paramedic in a large metro fire department. I worked in a very economically depressed area (PC for the ghetto). I never once saw someone dying in the streets or denied care! Not once! In fact it's illegal to not provide life saving care to someone in need. I realize that you will argue that they will simply be kicked out as soon as they are patched up and will get no follow up care. I say to you, that's bullshit! Any of them who want it will receive it. It may not be at the nice comfy private hospital with a water fall and botanical garden and flatscreen in every private room but the care shouldn't be any less.

 

[NLXSK1]

Verbatim: tort reform will play an important role as well.

Last I checked though, tort reform's absence hasn't been the driving factor of health care costs, it's a part, but far from the majority. Most of the money ends up in pharma, and health insurers.

Yes, but it would take 1 piece of legislation to fix and all of the politicians are so deep into the lawyers pockets that it will never happen.

I am not sure if you noticed but our government is corrupt. It exists to enrich itself now, not to take care of the people. Unless we take the power back from the federal government, nothing will functionally change until the system collapses.

Getting elected doesnt make someone competent to run the country. And that applies to everyone in the legislative branch.

 

[doc111]

Yes, but it would take 1 piece of legislation to fix and all of the politicians are so deep into the lawyers pockets that it will never happen.

I am not sure if you noticed but our government is corrupt. It exists to enrich itself now, not to take care of the people. Unless we take the power back from the federal government, nothing will functionally change until the system collapses.

Getting elected doesnt make someone competent to run the country. And that applies to everyone in the legislative branch.

Amen brother!

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Well it would lower it a bit. The real problem is that an unchecked corporate system doesn't profit off of keeping people healthy. It profits by judging what is and isn't necessary, not by your doctor, by an actuator. You people fear that the government will tell your doctor what to do, I fear that wall st. will tell my doctor what to do. The government tends to be in it for personal greed of a politician, which pales in comparison to an investor backed, board of directors run corporate greed. We throw politicians in jail for greedy money mongering, we invest and cheer on highly profitable corporations.

Corporate profit and our health doesn't line up. It can't. At first, health insurance used to be nonprofit organizations to help blocks of workers. Step by step they became so perverse that we have what we have today. The government isn't supposed to be profitable regarding things like that, and largely they aren't, when they are, eventually things are exposed and action is taken. A corporation is designed to be profitable, which is fine when talking about cars, shirts, mutual funds, hamburgers, what have you. Dealing with profitability and health is complex and probably better not left to it's own devices.

So, I am always looking for progress, not perfection. Although the government is far from perfect, it is the only institution large enough to impact the health care market. You cannot make an institution up run as a third party for it without acknowledging that it would be quickly consumed by the gigantic influence of the health insurance firms.

That is why I implore you look beyond tort reform and forge a larger, all encompassing solution. Your set up a "third party broker, and fix tort issues" is just side stepping the issue. It is a wildly complex issue, and putting the government in it would allow it to be reviewed at any given moment, and changed for any given reason in the future. We can make the government do things (albeit more difficult than we usually think), we can't make corporations do things.

Yes, but if we just did tort reform, how much lower would our costs already be?

That is where the argument gets muddy.

 

[NoDrama]

You honestly think that people who now have to ability to avoid a health emergency won't? Why because they are lazy? Dumb? Unemployed? Employed by a business that doesn't provide health care?
We end up paying for ER visits anyway, why wouldn't you rather pay for its prevention at half or a quarter of it's cost?

Sure, now tell that to all the people that smoke, drink, eat McDonalds for every meal, speed, do drugs, walk out side their homes, shit, or breathe. Your gonna die one day, it doesn't matter how good your health care is. You can only extend it by living a healthy life now, but its no guarantee you'll be alive tomorrow. Check every official statistic you want, you won't find cause of death listed as "Didn't have insurance" on any of them. Sure people go bankrput sometimes trying to save a loved one, big deal. One of my uncles has had 3 Bankruptcies, still has a home and a car and feeds his family.

No wonder why conservative administrations never ran a budget surplus in the past three decades...they can't do simple math and prediction.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

That link is a reference for you so I can show you a few things. NLXSK1 has been kind enough to point out the Strawman fallacy for you a few times, but I will point out a few more because I just don't think your getting the idea. I can simplify it for you:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Thank god political and financial geniuses like yourself are so attune to these facts that you defeated any chance of that being a reality. The best part of which is that I don't even have to provide data that you won't understand or believe, this is pure, good 'ol common sense that you are incapable of comprehending.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

I really wanted to stop replying to posts on this thread because it is truly a pointless waste of my time, but you just keep on making the most out of this world statements that I have to write half as much now. Thanks for saving me time!

If you want to talk about out of this world statements you should read this one.....

You really want to know why small business is struggling so much? It has a lot to do with the fact that no one wants to work for an employer that doesn't provide health care.

Yeah sure, the reason Small businesses are hurting is not because business has fallen off, or that people are spending less or the fact were still in a recession. Sure, it has nothing to do with a credit crunch where small business is unable to get loans to cover things like payroll or anything. Nope, the reason small businesses are having a hard time is because they don't offer health insurance so therefore people don't want to work for them. And then you went on to talk about something called "Common Sense". (the Preceding Paragraph is not sarcasm, it me being facetious, there is a difference)

The definition of Common sense is...Sound Practical Judgment, which I am not so sure you have any.

 

[NLXSK1]

Your set up a third party broker, and fix tort issues is just side stepping the issue.

What I said is have a private insurance between you and your doctor. Something like you pay $70 dollars per month and it takes care of your basic care and emergency healthcare. Your doctor would be part of a group capable of doing all procedures necessary for what you agree to. There would essentially be no insurance provider and thus no paperwork and no fraud because you are dealing directly with your doctor.

These types of collectives could have up front pricing and people could choose whichever one they wanted to be a part of.

If you eliminated 3 layers of crap = Government/Insurance/Lawyers you would not see a little savings you would see a HUGE savings.

But you cannot demand that providers fix every health problem all the time and expect premiums to be lower than they are now.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

I believe you are false, the reason tort reform hasn't passed is that there is a convincing argument on both sides of the equation. How much is a dead relative worth to you at another's hands? Especially is made by negligent mistakes?? That does happen. There are douche bag doctors just like there are douche bag anything else. Thats a tough question to handle or answer on a national platform. If you were to put a bargaining piece on the table worth the concession of the liberal argument against tort reform, I'm sure it would pass.

In reality, the opposition to give any bargaining piece what so ever, and only demand concessions (which they received) was the real reason you didn't get it. Once conservatives got rid of the public option, you didn't hear tort reform cross their lips again. Its called a compromise, believe it or not, democrats have shown a pretty good ability to do so, to a fault IMO.

Yes, but it would take 1 piece of legislation to fix and all of the politicians are so deep into the lawyers pockets that it will never happen.

I am not sure if you noticed but our government is corrupt. It exists to enrich itself now, not to take care of the people. Unless we take the power back from the federal government, nothing will functionally change until the system collapses.

Getting elected doesnt make someone competent to run the country. And that applies to everyone in the legislative branch.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

you assume doctors across the nation want this

What I said is have a private insurance between you and your doctor. Something like you pay $70 dollars per month and it takes care of your basic care and emergency healthcare. Your doctor would be part of a group capable of doing all procedures necessary for what you agree to. There would essentially be no insurance provider and thus no paperwork and no fraud because you are dealing directly with your doctor.

These types of collectives could have up front pricing and people could choose whichever one they wanted to be a part of.

If you eliminated 3 layers of crap = Government/Insurance/Lawyers you would not see a little savings you would see a HUGE savings.

But you cannot demand that providers fix every health problem all the time and expect premiums to be lower than they are now.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

Wow you're dense. And I thought you were a libertarian, not a conservative.
All my points stand, outside of small business, both our points play factors.
Would you work for an employer that doesn't provide healthcare if you already didn't have any?

Additionally, I suppose we should all just claim bankruptcy like your uncle. Thats a practical outcome when an entire industry has priced you out of getting necessary care, unless you play by the health care industries rules. Especially when you have to claim bankruptcy over inflated prices, that are pumped up by insurance payments from the insured, and the baked in cost of emergency care for those uninsured. Thats real smart.

Im disappointed in myself for entertaining your post enough to respond to it.

Sure, now tell that to all the people that smoke, drink, eat McDonalds for every meal, speed, do drugs, walk out side their homes, shit, or breathe. Your gonna die one day, it doesn't matter how good your health care is. You can only extend it by living a healthy life now, but its no guarantee you'll be alive tomorrow. Check every official statistic you want, you won't find cause of death listed as "Didn't have insurance" on any of them. Sure people go bankrput sometimes trying to save a loved one, big deal. One of my uncles has had 3 Bankruptcies, still has a home and a car and feeds his family.

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

That link is a reference for you so I can show you a few things. NLXSK1 has been kind enough to point out the Strawman fallacy for you a few times, but I will point out a few more because I just don't think your getting the idea. I can simplify it for you:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.




An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

If you want to talk about out of this world statements you should read this one.....
Yeah sure, the reason Small businesses are hurting is not because business has fallen off, or that people are spending less or the fact were still in a recession. Sure, it has nothing to do with a credit crunch where small business is unable to get loans to cover things like payroll or anything. Nope, the reason small businesses are having a hard time is because they don't offer health insurance so therefore people don't want to work for them. And then you went on to talk about something called "Common Sense". (the Preceding Paragraph is not sarcasm, it me being facetious, there is a difference)

The definition of Common sense is...Sound Practical Judgment, which I am not so sure you have any.

 

[NLXSK1]

I believe you are false, the reason tort reform hasn't passed is that there is a convincing argument on both sides of the equation. How much is a dead relative worth to you at another's hands? Especially is made by negligent mistakes??

There should be a supervisory board for doctors. It should not be government controlled but could have oversight. They would review issues on a case by case basis and would have the ability to revoke licenses.

Now, having to go to school for however many years becoming a doctor and having your license pulled would be a pretty heavy price to pay for a mistake.

I am going to tell you something you probably dont want to hear... *Everybody dies....*

Now, if you can tell me why some person trying to save your (insert dead relative here) life deserves to get sued simply because they did not succeed then I can show you why your insurance premiums are so high.

And if you think torte reform is ever going to pass your smoking pot... Oh wait... Just go look at the percentage of the congress that are lawyers... They will cluck their tounges and tell you how bad it is but they are never going to cut their brothers off of that lucrative food chain. You are simply deluding yourself based on your belief that government is not corrupt and it is actually looking out for your best interest.

And essentially what you are saying is that the democrats are holding torte reform HOSTAGE as part of negotiations. A little scummy eh? I dont believe that Republicans are any more interested in tort reform as democrats and it is kubuki theatre that you watch.

 

[Hudsonvalley82]

True, everyone dies.

If a risky procedure fails to save someone's life, that is just the way of things.
If a doctor is negligent, and his/her negligent actions kill or destroy someone life, then that is a tragedy.

Doctors are supposed to be getting paid so much because their job has the burden of mortality and well-being embedded in it. That is why the education costs so much (I still think it is inflated) and takes so long.

If I kill your kid (god forbid) in a car accident negligently, in all likelihood your going to fuck me for everything I have, my insurance has, and then some. I know that doesn't solve the problem, but thats what happens. Why shouldn't the same be in place for someone whose job it is to keep people alive?

Key word being negligently.

In response to the dems hold tort reform hostage, that was in response to the GOP holding 40 million citizens health hostage, so I think it is fair in the end. Thats how shit happens.

I like the suggestion you have mentioned. Tort reform will happen too. I never thought I see half the shit I saw happen, and it did.

There should be a supervisory board for doctors. It should not be government controlled but could have oversight. They would review issues on a case by case basis and would have the ability to revoke licenses.

Now, having to go to school for however many years becoming a doctor and having your license pulled would be a pretty heavy price to pay for a mistake.

I am going to tell you something you probably dont want to hear... *Everybody dies....*

Now, if you can tell me why some person trying to save your (insert dead relative here) life deserves to get sued simply because they did not succeed then I can show you why your insurance premiums are so high.

And if you think torte reform is ever going to pass your smoking pot... Oh wait... Just go look at the percentage of the congress that are lawyers... They will cluck their tounges and tell you how bad it is but they are never going to cut their brothers off of that lucrative food chain. You are simply deluding yourself based on your belief that government is not corrupt and it is actually looking out for your best interest.

And essentially what you are saying is that the democrats are holding torte reform HOSTAGE as part of negotiations. A little scummy eh? I dont believe that Republicans are any more interested in tort reform as democrats and it is kubuki theatre that you watch.