On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:39:40 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my
perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy.
THAT was gov health care.

ROTFL!!!

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

I would like to hear your views.

Thunder talked about one that I like - the co-op. That seems to be a
very effective and efficient way to provide quality health care.

Another idea is open up the competition between companies and stop
protecting them with legislation that virtually ensures monopolies in
individual states.

I also like the PPO system - preferred provider option. Insurance
companies can negotiate with health care centers in terms of costs.
Mrs. Wave is in a PPO system that seems to work really well - they
have a system where the Town self-insures with a re-insurance option
for the more costly members. The state of CT has a similar system for
the state employees and it seems to work well enough that the state is
considering extending their system to towns to participate in.

Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water
shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their
malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to
protect doctors from malpractice claims.

That's a few to start with.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water
shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their
malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect
doctors from malpractice claims.

I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would
keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people
talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts.
Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor
screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken
care of.

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water
shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their
malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect
doctors from malpractice claims.

I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would
keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people
talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts.
Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor
screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken
care of.


A number of reputable sources state that malpractice insurance and
payout adds maybe 2% to medical costs. I've seen a survey that claims it
approaches 7%.

Meanwhile, many health insurers are earning profits of more than 25%,
and for what? It's not as if they add value. In fact, they increase
costs dramatically for businesses and individuals. When the
monster-sized private insurers force hospital and doctors to accept
rates that don't cover costs, who do you think makes up the difference?
The smaller insurers and those who insure themselves.

I like the Swiss schema. There's mandatory national health insurance for
everyone, and it isn't free, and there are private supplemental programs
you can buy or not buy.

Taking the profit out of health insurance will dramatically lower costs.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:22:48 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water
shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their
malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect
doctors from malpractice claims.

I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would
keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people
talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts.
Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor
screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken
care of.

I don't disagree with you, but the case has to have some merit. In
this case, I'd be in favor of a review panel type of situation to
decide on merit.

The problem is, and will always be, what rates as "merit" and what
rates as "frivilous". I've told the story of my own run in with
malpractice as a paramedic - to my mind, the lawyer should have just
told the plaintiff that her kid was lucky to be alive, but...

I think, and I would hope that most rational people would think this
way, that the whole issue needs careful deliberation - not radical
change in the space of two months. This is going to take years to fix.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:01:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:


I don't disagree with you, but the case has to have some merit. In this
case, I'd be in favor of a review panel type of situation to decide on
merit.

It might work, but I would think it might be difficult to set up.


The problem is, and will always be, what rates as "merit" and what rates
as "frivilous". I've told the story of my own run in with malpractice
as a paramedic - to my mind, the lawyer should have just told the
plaintiff that her kid was lucky to be alive, but...

I would agree things should be done to keep malpractice insurance costs
down. There are clearly cases that are brought that aren't malpractice,
and they shouldn't have been brought. OTOH, there are doctors that live
in court rooms, constantly being sued. Perhaps, pulling a few specific
licenses would keep the insurance rates down. All in all, it is going to
be a tough and interesting debate.



I think, and I would hope that most rational people would think this
way, that the whole issue needs careful deliberation - not radical
change in the space of two months. This is going to take years to fix.

You know, I've heard several pundits say that this isn't going to be
fixed all at once. No one is going to get everything they want, but, the
Sacred Cow will be popped. Health care reform will be being tweaked for
decades.

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:39:40 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my
perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy.
THAT was gov health care.

ROTFL!!!

I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class
and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue
either.

I would like to hear your views.

Thunder talked about one that I like - the co-op. That seems to be a
very effective and efficient way to provide quality health care.

Another idea is open up the competition between companies and stop
protecting them with legislation that virtually ensures monopolies in
individual states.

I also like the PPO system - preferred provider option. Insurance
companies can negotiate with health care centers in terms of costs.
Mrs. Wave is in a PPO system that seems to work really well - they
have a system where the Town self-insures with a re-insurance option
for the more costly members. The state of CT has a similar system for
the state employees and it seems to work well enough that the state is
considering extending their system to towns to participate in.

Not real familiar with PPO's although they used to be touted over
HMO's. Yet I rejected my company's PPO offering as less flexible and
selected the HMO, which actually cost me more in premium.
A work mate I'm friendly with still mocks HMO's because you go to a
primary care physician first. I haven't found that to be an issue,
and he readily refers me to specialists when called for, actually -
since I have some blarney in me - all I have to do is ask.
Guess my pal thinks he knows more than any primary doc.
I have heard that there are no successful medical co-ops delivering
the quality care expected by most, but I'm not sure about that.
I do see a problem with many scattered entities and state legislatures
determining what health care is available, because it can limit
mobility and is just plain confusing.
You mentioned medical coders once, and I see the non-stardardization
of too many players just adding to cost.
BTW, another thing I learned watching the C-Span Senate hearings was
an issue raised by the Rep Senator from Wyoming - Inzi.
This kind of ties in with the above.
He cautioned that dumping people into Medicaid could have disastrous
results for the states, since they pay a significant portion of
Medicaid. Just another "minor complication."

Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water
shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their
malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to
protect doctors from malpractice claims.

I recently saw a program - I think on C-Span, maybe with Brian Lamb
interviewing a journalist named Reid, who had sought out health care
around the world for a PBS film - where a Japanese doctor was
asked what he paid for malpractice insurance.
The doc had to think a moment to understand what is meant by
"malpractice insurance" then it came to him.
"Oh, that's included in my medical association dues."
The dues? $30 a year.
So I agree with you there. This isn't to say that a malpractice suit
can't be pursued, but that there are caps on punitive damages, and
loser pays. Doesn't mean you can't get legit compensatory damages.
Still severe reform. England has loser pays I think.
Thank the trial lawyer lobby for no action here. Shame on Obama.

--Vic

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:44:12 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

So I agree with you there. This isn't to say that a malpractice suit
can't be pursued, but that there are caps on punitive damages, and
loser pays. Doesn't mean you can't get legit compensatory damages.
Still severe reform. England has loser pays I think.

That idea has been around for a while and it does have some value.