On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:10:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:01:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What if it's not criminal? What if it's criminal, but can't be
prosecuted
for various techincal reasons? $250K is nothing. OIC... buy more
unaffordable insurance is the answer! NOT


You are going to pay one way or the other as long as mal-practice is
just another insurance item.
There is no incentive to stop bad doctors, they just let them continue
screwing up and passing the cost on to the public.
People like you who think a quarter of a million is not just
compensation are just increasing the size of the problem.

The reality is there is no way to compensate someone for mal-practice.
Lawyers invented this cash payout model, just because they get a third
to half of the money.
Sweet deal. Don't stop bad doctors, cash in on them.


Sorry, but tort reform and caps on compensation for loss are small items
in
the scheme of healthcare reform. How about no pre-existing conditions?
How
about removing the anti-trust exemptions? How about ensuring competition
in
the ins. field? Those are the big items.


You miss the point. As long as there is a big fat tort pie out there
to be had and nobody will address incompetent doctors it is a huge
problem. Everyone acts like a fat judgement will protect them from a
bad doctor. That is lunacy unless you are just planning on getting
hurt for the money. I say dump the whole thing. You can only go after
real measurable financial damages and the doctor pays, not the
insurance company. Let them go bankrupt for a change. Do it in
criminal court where the law has some teeth.

What about pain and suffering? And, again, what if there's no criminal
behavior that can be determined? Then what?

Pain and suffering are just something invented by lawyers to pad their
bankroll.
If I cause someone pain and suffering by punching them in the nose I
go to jail

I agree that if someone changes insurance, they should get a break on
pre-esisting conditions (perhaps bringing some money along from the
company they have been paying into) but if this is someone who made
the conscious choice NOT to buy insurance, then they get sick and
suddenly want it ... fkm. You spun the wheel and took your chances.
Sell all of that "stuff" you needed more than insurance.

Pre-existing conditions according to whom.. the ins. companies? They
consider rape a pre-existing condition.

The point is if you didn't buy insurance when you were healthy, just
to save some money, tough.
I would agree to a mandatory coverage law. You have to buy insurance.

It's not quite so simple as fkm. They show up the emergency room. Should
we
let them die after we quiz them about their ins. card?

It is like someone who chose not to buy collision insurance then wants
it after they totaled their car.

Not really. Not even the same scale....

Same principle tho

Pre-existing condition guarantees will have to come with a mandatory
insurance law.

As for the other business issues, state lines, anti trust etc, much
ado about nothing as far as I see. Just open it up and let them go at
each other in a 50 state marketplace. Unfortunately it is the
insurance companies who prefer the current 50 separate company model..

Then, you're not looking at the cost factors of those things, esp.
compared
to the items you mentioned.

The biggest cost factor, the actual care, is being ignored by
everyone.


Perhaps, that's certainly a big number. Something like 70% of docs want a
public option or single payer. They're just as sick of the paperwork as
everyone else.

Don't talk to them about Medicare. The docs I know as friends think
It's just as bad as dealing with the insurance companies.