On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:01:15 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 16/04/2010 2:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

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".

aint that much in the middle class, either.

didn't stop the rich from stealing it.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.

The voters in each state do choose. They choose their Federal
representatives who vote in either the majority or the minority. It was
decided at the federal level.


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.

Only by idiots.


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".

According to PhD Canuck, who's barred from entering the US. Uh huh.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
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.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Jim" wrote in message
...
jamesgangnc wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:48 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".

Frankly I think we could save a whole lot from the administrative
costs and returning insurance back to the non-profit state. Right now
we have two layers of profit and two layers of administrative costs
coming out of every health care dollar.

I heard that two thirds of Medicare spending is for the last year of life.
That's why the Dems want death panels.
Lowers the cost. Got nothing to do with hangnails.
Remember how they killed that Schiavo girl down here?
Took her off life support. Too expensive.
Then you got your trial lawyers.

Jim - Watch what you wish for. You might get it.



Lots of Medicare spending is about like medicade spending. My mom's
stockbroker is in Jacksonville, FL. They are next to a major hospital. The
seniors come down, get a small checkup and then come over and check their
stocks. Couple times a week. No copays. Cheap entertainment. I am a
medicare participand and always figured there should be a copay.

"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


He addressed the problem and you come right back and state the same thing
numdenuts stated. Is exasperating to deal with lazyiness.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry
can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and
cheaper. Just seems odd.

we have free market healthcare NOW.

it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like
asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'?

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry
can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and
cheaper. Just seems odd.

we have free market healthcare NOW.

it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like
asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'?





Mr. and Ms. Grant.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"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


He addressed the problem and you come right back and state the same thing
numdenuts stated. Is exasperating to deal with lazyiness.

It's exasperating to deal with stupidity, be we do that with you and only
complain a little bit.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:30:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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.

--

You are reporting the tort lawyer's side and he is reporting the
doctor's side.
You are not acknowledging the defense lawyers side and the insurance
company cut. (probably more than one company)
There is a health insurance company with their lawyer and a
malpractice insurance company with their lawyer.
The doctor and the next patient pay 4 lawyers and 2 insurance
companies, all because patient #1 didn't get the result he wanted.

Since this involves a posting of mine, I will respond to what you said.
First, Mr W1TEF is not reporting "the doctors side."
He is reporting a particular doctor's experience with health insurance
premiums.
I clearly stated in my reply to him that even for OB/GYNs the
malpractice insurance premiums vary wildly by state.
Because states regulate the insurance companies.
This is a known FACT.
I saw a chart of OB/GYN premiums where the cost in Colorado and
Wisconsin is $20,000 and in NY and Florida $120,000 for the same
coverage. But in Dade county the premium is +$200,000.
So just blaming lawyers won't do as an analysis, though I suspect Dade
county is a lawyer heaven and that accounts for the high premiums there.
Which only shows that lawyers are a part of the problem.
I did not cite those charts since I expected that the source would be
attacked, as "kill the messenger" seems to be a de rigeur means of
argument here.
You employed it above - "reporting the tort lawyer's side."
Second, I clearly stated that the widely accepted figure of .5% of total
health care costs was comprised of payouts to plaintiffs and total
litigation costs. That includes the insurance company defense lawyers.
Third, I explicitly said to look at the insurers and their premiums for
the rest of the costs.
You are welcome to provide actual cites of costs if you care to, but I
hope you are specific in your argument when doing so.
"Malpractice" is an industry. There are many players.
You may blame lawyers all you want, but their part of it and claims paid
comprising .5% or less of health care costs is often reported by
disparate sources, and can be quantified by court filings.
The most recent number I've seen is $6.6 billion.
A few years old, but that is often the case with statistic gathering.
Bye the bye, I often have a customer, usually a woman (that's just my
experience, and I'm making no sexist remark here) who asks for a size 6
shoe. When I fit it is clearly too small, and she needs a size 7.
I say "Hmmm. Let me measure."
I put her foot in the Brannock, and it says her foot is size 7.
Not one customer has argued after that.
Because the Brannock doesn't lie.
Facts are facts.
Now, having said all that, let me be clear that I think tort reform is
necessary, if only to eliminate frivolous and fraudulent litigation, and
insurance company premium gouging.
Additionally, I won't stand firmly behind any figures I have presented,
because I question everything until there is a general agreement as to
the facts.
There is no sense arguing without facts.
When you argue without facts, it is called "politics."

Peter

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:01:11 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

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've heard it said that life is like a new shoe box. You never know what you're
gonna get 'til you try it on. Or bite into it...or something like that.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v