I've never been able to rationalize the fact that I believe everyone should have health care with the fact that it just seems stupid for me to pay for a life-long smokers' lung-cancer related healthcare needs, regardless of whether or not I have a BMW in the garage. Talking about getting healthcare to those who seriously can't afford it is one thing, paying for an alcoholics liver treatments seems to be something different.
The company I worked for dropped health insurance after I worked there for five months (and never gave it to me when they said they would). I hurt my back a month later. I am in a lot of pain, and it is very hard for me just to walk sometimes. I can not afford to go to the doctor, and my job outlook is limited due to my handicap. I feel screwed over. I think a better National Health Care system could of prevented this happening to me.
Premiums - How will they cut premiums? Is it the same idea Bush has to pool everyone as a large group? Are they going to force companies to cut premuims (I have no idea how they would do that) Cover all Americans - Again great idea, now tell me how to pay for it. Prescription Drugs - So you want hurt companies who make drugs in the US right? I'm not saying it's wrong but look under the "outsourcing" thread about how many think it's the role of government to create jobs within the US. Strange thing is most arguing for the governmnet creating jobs seem to fall behind Kerry) Cut waste and Inefficiency - Great idea in theory but how? When has teh government taken over anything and simplified it.
Still upset about Prop 12 I see. Max, do you honestly expect years of abuse of the system by runaway juries and trial lawyers to automatically be washed out of the system immediately after Prop 12 passed? It takes time for this new law to work its way through the system. You know that, but you purposefully attempt to mislead by saying what you say above. You are bitter that the voters disagreed with your self-interested lawyer's opinion. And before you say it, I know you aren't a personal injury lawyer, but you are a lawyer. Lawyers protect other lawyers. Look, the system doesn't just turn on a dime as you so foolishly suggest it should. Healthcare for all is an important issue. So is quality of healthcare. Keep that in mind when you want to slash doctors salaries and skimp on hospital expenses.
I guess the challenge is to convince you and others that health care is a universal good the same way national defense is. I can see why people don't want to pay for it if it means higher taxes. I would agree that self inflicted damage from smoking and drinking shouldn't be covered. Whatever happened to all the money the tobacco companies dished out? That should have been put into some kind of trusts to pay the healthcare costs of smokers, particularly those who smoked before the dangers became common knowledge. Most of it went to the lawyers I guess.
I similarly echo Jayz750's comments. Where do you draw the line on these things? I'd hate to think I paying for someone's bypass becuase they can't stop stuffing their face with pork or becuase they are alcoholics are hooked on acid. The additional question is, what level of health care is acceptable. Should everyone have access to the best health care possible or is there simply a minimum level. In a sense, is this an expanded medicaid/medicare program? My understanding is the level of service in those programs is horrible, so I don't see nationalized healthcare as a bonanza.
The Fraser Institute is very much a right wing think tank, and they are seriously biased in favour of the free market and against government involvement. That said... Waiting lists are a HUGE issue in Canada. I don't doubt their numbers. Emergency care is done right away...if you have a heart attack, you WILL get immediate service (and it won't cost ya' -- and it'll be top notch) but for 'elective' surgery...you're going to wait. This is the crisis the system is facing. It's not unusual for Canadians to arrange surgery in the US A(and pay for it) to avoid the lines. In my opinion, for those who can afford it, or have coverage, there simply is no better health care available then that in the US. But that's a big qualifier. One that will keep the US down the list of any 'best healthcare' survey. And one that is shamefull in such a wealthy country.
i'm purposefully trying to mislead, TJ. that's my schitck. and i would have gotten away with it to if it weren't for you meddlesome kids. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you speak on these subjects. you assume things about me that aren't true. you assume things about litigation that aren't true. i have zero faith that insurance companies are going to lower premiums because of Prop 12. if i took you seriously, i would engage you in debate on this. but debating with you is like talking to a brick wall...one that capitalizes the last sentence of its comments to emphasize a point. its comical. move along, now.
Max, did you or did you not imply that Prop 12 was a failure because healthcare costs have yet to decrease for you personally? YOU DID. You attempted to mislead. It is posted for all to see.
i know..i'm out to mislead you. prop 12 is and will be a failure. we had a rush of cases filed on the d-day...and limited cases have been filed since. i'm betting your understanding of medical malpractice law and procedure is on par with my 4 year old son's. i have not seen...nor do i expect to see...any reduction in health care premiums as a result of prop 12. not at all. clear? i don't want to mislead you.
I don't know, your son's got a lawyer in the family and could probably explain Canterbury v. Spence better than Jorge could... I got $5 on the kid! at least the kid would make a legitimate attempt to answer the question
...sadly. I can't argue that UT gives a better quality education than most private schools. Same exact thing happened to my grandfather and he got workman's comp. Try looking into that because it was able to help him out, so it might be available to you, as well.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20040917/ap_on_bi_ge/sweden_tired_of_work By MATTIAS KAREN, Associated Press Writer STOCKHOLM, Sweden - In a country already plagued by skyrocketing sick leave costs, a new survey found that 40 percent of the population thinks it's acceptable to skip work because they feel tired or have trouble getting along with their colleagues. The survey, presented Friday by the National Social Insurance Board, showed that Swedes manifestly take advantage of the country's liberal sick leave system, officials said. Sixty-five percent of the 1,002 people interviewed also said that a stressful work situation is also a valid reason for calling in sick. The survey shows "a deep lack of knowledge about what the health insurance is meant to cover," board director Anna Hedborg said of Sweden's 9 million residents. Alf Eckerhall, a social insurance expert with the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, went a step further: many Swedes are deliberately abusing the system. "The insurance laws clearly state that inability to work because of illness" is the only valid reason to stay home, Eckerhall said. "The key word is 'inability to work' — not 'illness.'" The survey, conducted June 17-24, did not have a margin of error. Sweden's extensive cradle-to-grave welfare system includes generous social insurance programs covering sick leave, parental leave and unemployment benefits. But paying for workers on long-term sick leave and disability has become one of the government's biggest expenditures. Sick leave compensation tripled from 15 billion kronor ($2 billion) in 1997 to 45 billion kronor ($6 billion) in 2002. In Sweden, the employer pays for the first three weeks' sick leave and workers can call in sick for seven days before needing a doctor's certificate or medical proof. People who call in sick do not receive any compensation for the first day they are absent. But Eckerhall said many are abusing the current system by leaving work and calling in sick shortly before their work day is over. That then counts as one sick day, which lets them start receiving sick pay the next day. "That means your day without compensation was 15 minutes long," Eckerhall said. "Medically speaking, that sounds pretty odd." Hedborg said the board will launch a massive nationwide campaign to inform people that only illness is a valid reason to stay home from work, she said. "To many, this message may seem hard and even insensitive," she wrote. "The truth is that if we don't defend our common insurance today, we won't be able to afford keeping it."
I guess Prop 12 might finally be impacting things: http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/09/20/daily5.htm lAustin-based Texas Medical Liability Trust, the largest medical liability insurer in Texas, announced Monday it has cut rates by an additional 5 percent, for a total reduction of 17 percent for the year. This is the second rate cut this year for TMLT, a physician-owned insurer. In January, the group announced an across-the-board 12 percent rate cut. The additional rate reduction will be effective Jan. 1. Of Texas' five largest insurers, TMLT is the only one so far that has slashed rates following the Sept. 13, 2003, passage of Proposition 12, legislation that forced insurers to consider adjusting malpractice rates. TMLT serves 12,000 doctors, representing 48.2 percent of the available physician market in the state. Since announcing the 12 percent rate cut, TLMT says it has added more than 1,600 new physician policyholders. In a statement, TMLT said the reduction translates into $34 million in savings for Texas physicians and is the result of a stabilizing medical liability market "made possible by legislative reforms and passage of last year's Proposition 12." Texas Medical Association President Dr. Bohn D. Allen applauded the move, which he says is evidence that tort reform has proven to be effective in curtailin "meritless lawsuits." "Our patients who voted to pass Proposition 12 did so because they wanted their doctors to remain in practice," Allen says. "Now, with this proof, we have to ask why the other insurers are not following suit ... It's time these other insurers acknowledge the value of Prop 12 and slash their unsupportable rates."
