On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:44:34 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

uh...you have a problem

you assume that what the insurance companies charge is related to what
they pay out in insurance claims.

got any proof of that? because what the companies DO do is use
premiums to cover their investment losses.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:44:34 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

uh...you have a problem

you assume that what the insurance companies charge is related to what
they pay out in insurance claims.

got any proof of that? because what the companies DO do is use
premiums to cover their investment losses.

Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.
This is a quantifiable cost.
"Defensive" medicine costs can't be determined.
A case can be made that "defensive" medicine is simply "thorough and
careful" medicine.
Even among OB/GYNs - a high premium specialty - the rate can vary
drastically, eg 600%, due to what state the practice is in, since it the
states that regulate the insurance companies.
As always, it is the insurance company middlemen raking it in.
Dealing with insurance companies, whether with exorbitant malpractice
premiums, or with nitpicking health care claims, is the doctor's curse.
They can deal with it, work to change the system, or find another
occupation.
That's pretty much what I do in selling and fitting shoes.
When confronted by smelly feet, I recommend these to my customers.

http://www.amazon.com/Pair-Anti-Odor...Insoles-Smell-
Eater/dp/B001M5JKXU

I think carrying these in the shop would be profitable, but haven't been
able to convince management of that. We do sell orthopedic insoles, and
they move pretty good. Rack space is limited, and the margin on the
orhtos is better than the smell-eaters.
I do love my job, try to help people, change what I can, and accept what
I can not change. Learned that early from Ann Landers.

Peter

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

And thats about right on average for most doctors who specialize in
oncology and OB/GYN.

They wish it was 3/4% of their costs.


You can tell us... how's that? You have some proof of this? Doubtful, since
the proof is that it's as stated... 3 or 4%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter

On 4/16/10 8:37 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.


That's been Tom's M.O. here.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter



I don't mind differing opinions... if they can be supported by facts or
intelligent thought about an opinion. For example, one can argue that the
Afg. war is needed or not needed. But to claim things to be the opposite of
what is easily checked is just posturing. Even posturing is better than
nothing, which is what the poster is doing by the "I'm outta here"
statement. If he were really serious, he'd cite some facts to back up his
story. Acedotes are interesting, but they don't necessarily speak to the
larger issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only
be deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured
to a government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided
they are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in
arrears with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then
hike taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it.
Government care will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive
stuff. It may be rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched
implants or sex changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care,
it cannot be skimed or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

On 16/04/2010 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

That should be a red flag. Governemtn hiring consultants to sell the
governemtn view.

GM having lobbiests yet it is Government Motors!

Sounds like voters and listening to the people does not mater any more.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

On 16/04/2010 2:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where
he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting"
people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

As you said, funnelling it back to the state doesn't equate to the hospital
"eating" the bill.

Why not have the voters in each state choose. Seriously! If the
residents want it, they get both the service and the bill. If you don't
want the bill you can move out.

In the long run, a single-payer system is less expensive with better
results. But, what you're talking about happening so far isn't a "whole
insurance bureaucracy" either. And, even if it were, it wouldn't happen
overnight.

Debatable.

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

The current bill that passed has problems. No doubt, but it's the beginning,
and probably the best that could be had in the short term. I'll check out
the show later tonight.

Blank check to **** away money. You should see the plans on spending
more and increasing taxes... I see a national sales tax coming soon...
there isn't that much money in the 2% "rich".


--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.