"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it.
What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new
customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt
from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome
the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally
coming around...


Brute force legislation. They've had a choice about being serious about
reform, and they've chosen to continue their base practices.

If they were serious they would allow us to buy drugs overseas, tort
reform, cross state insurance purchase... But they won't do any of these
things because then there would be no more boogie man to point at...


Why would you want to buy drugs that haven't been tested by the FDA? I know
they don't do the best job, but people die or get sick from tainted
medicine.

Tort reform has been going on a long time. Nothing wrong with continuing.

Crossing state lines seems fine to me. It fosters competition, just like the
public option will.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:02:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it.
What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new
customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt
from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome
the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally
coming around...


Brute force legislation. They've had a choice about being serious about
reform, and they've chosen to continue their base practices.

If they were serious they would allow us to buy drugs overseas, tort
reform, cross state insurance purchase... But they won't do any of these
things because then there would be no more boogie man to point at...


Why would you want to buy drugs that haven't been tested by the FDA? I know
they don't do the best job, but people die or get sick from tainted
medicine.

Tort reform has been going on a long time. Nothing wrong with continuing.

Crossing state lines seems fine to me. It fosters competition, just like the
public option will.

These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:02:53 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


Why would you want to buy drugs that haven't been tested by the FDA? I
know they don't do the best job, but people die or get sick from tainted
medicine.

Look north. There are many online pharmacies in Canada, that will sell
drugs at savings between 20-50%. The same drugs we have here.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of
admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill
and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly
promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris
Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like
Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda.
More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in
Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger
out of the wind and be a president.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.


The for-profit health insurance companies fear a public option because
it would show them up for the rip-off artists they are, and it would
force them to behave more reasonably with their customers. As it is now,
there is no meaningful oversight of health insurers, nor any real
competition. And they don't want any. Their model does not work for
working Americans.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

That's really an inflexible position, flawed in a couple respects.
First, you ignore "defensive medicine."
Second, if it's as you say that there's a "good idea whether it will
work or not," why can't what works be federalized?
Seems to me this is a case of the trial lawyers being in the Dem
pocket. Big mistake not reconciling this and shutting up one of the
Rep talking points.
I don't think the right to redress medical grievances will be hampered
by engaging in tort reform, if done right. But it might cut into the
business of the malpractice suit lawyers.
I don't have the facts and figures, as I haven't studied it, but my
impression is that it could be easily reformed, but for trial lawyer
lobbying. Special interest bull****.
Dems are no more immune to criticism on that than are Reps.

--Vic



..

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:


These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could
help the situation but it's going to require it's own process.

Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed
tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical
malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect
health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that
note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer.

The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of
admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill
and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly
promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris
Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like
Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda.
More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in
Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger
out of the wind and be a president.


Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep.
amendments. Look it up.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:32:20 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


Defensive medicine isn't necessarily wasted medicine. One of the dirty
little secrets in our health care system, is that roughly 100,000 deaths
per year, result from medical mistakes. That's twice as many deaths
than are caused by motor vehicles. Perhaps, more doctors should
practice defensive medicine.

Mistakes and "defensive medicine" are separate issues.

True, but then so is health care reform, and tort reform.

Second, if it's as you say that
there's a "good idea whether it will work or not," why can't what
works be federalized? Seems to me this is a case of the trial lawyers
being in the Dem pocket. Big mistake not reconciling this and
shutting up one of the Rep talking points.

You are willing to give up your right to sue for peanuts? Medical
malpractice costs are 1-2% of health care costs. Some incompetent
doctor makes you a paraplegic and you are willing to accept $250,000 for
your pain and suffering? Not me. Over 35 states already limit
compensation patients can receive for medical errors. Where are all the
savings? 35 states have tort reform. Why are Republicans bitching
about the other 15? It's a red herring.

I think it's not so simple as a red herring.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/2...o-tort-reform-
because-trial-lawyers-too-intimidating/
As to the $250,000 cap, according to this your paraplegic scenario has
recourse.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/
dems_ace_in_the_hole_on_health_care_tort_reform_97 919.html#
"Where the cap is insufficient in particularly egregious cases a "Health
Court" could hear appeals and make awards above the cap from a
compensation fund provided by the healthcare industry." Beckel pretty
much restates my feeling about the political trump card the Dems can
play here by going with some version of tort reform. You have to get
away from the playing of rhetorics here if you want to get something
done.
Not so sure about the "health court" idea, as courts can be bought. But
it could work if tweaked right.

The health court idea shows some promise, IMO. I also wouldn't mind
seeing some sort of entry bar before one can sue. What I can't see, is
protecting some doctor's wallet at the expense of a crippled patient.


Just as important and not much discussed is the pulling of licenses of
docs who make too many mistakes, and an effort to get more docs trained.
Looking at ratios of doc/patient here and in other 1st world countries,
we are way behind.

Both very good points, that should be addressed. Most doctors are well
qualified and competent, but the incompetent ones, the ones that are
responsible for the majority of malpractice, need to go. As for the
number of doctors, ever notice many emergency rooms are staffed with
immigrant doctors? It's my understanding that the AMA will only certify
so many slots at medical schools. It's time to change that.

That's the doc lobby.
Went through this bull**** when one of my daughters was heading for a
dental hygienist track. Lack of schools for attaining that cert here in
Illinois is a disgrace and a joke. She'll soon be a schoolteacher
instead, despite working as a dental assistant since she was 16. That's
ok with her anyway. She found out during the torture of getting into a
hygienist cert school that it was really pressure from her orthodontist
boss that had pushed her in that direction, not a real desire to enter
that occupation.

Good choice, IMO. Maybe it's just me, but spending a work day inside
someone's mouth ... ;-(

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the
competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's
wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why
should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint.

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in
message
...
On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of
new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to
purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.

Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of
public option (competition), would be a disaster.

There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from
anti-trust laws.

It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they
needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the
removal of any antitrust exemptions.

It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote
below.

"If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an
industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a
health care bill moving toward the Senate floor."

The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized
the administration...

Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only
because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff.

If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to
'anti-trust' laws?


That's funny! Did you make that up?

Can you answer the question?