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...

"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.

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.

"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

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



..

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.

Maryland is losing doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance
and the lack of reasonability on judgements against doctors. The biggest
lose is in the OB/GYN area.

The fact that your baby is not perfect isn't the doctors fault, it is
yours. Do a better job picking your parents and your spouse.

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.