http://www.maacenter.org/blog/more-tort-reform-lies.html It's an op-ed, but links to the various claims. It does appear that tort reform reduced liability insurance costs for doctors and has increased the # of doctors in Texas. But Texas health insurance rates have continued to skyrocket.
Since you believe it to be an easy solution, how do you propose the country as a whole reduce its waistline?
Should I take that to mean you don't actually have an answer to what you claimed was a simple solution?
Never saw that one on the Dem. platform. Still, it's those that do believe in "absolute right or wrong" that you have to worry about, for reasons obvious to anybody with even the slightest capacity for critical thought.
Thanks, Major. Found the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation paper. http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/042508ctuwfinalembargoed.pdf Also found another RWJ co-study on the estimated amount insurance premiums would decline if all states capped medical malpractice claims to 250k (1.8 billion). http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/050298.htm
Gee, cant take a joke Simple solution, people have healthier lifestyles and leave government out of it. Complex solution, bring government into it and force people to lose weight by raising taxes of fast food, etc. I'd go with the simple solution even though some people in this country lack the motivation to take care of themselves!
Please understand that this bill will pay for itself. It will not add to the debt. You are upset about something that isn't in the bill.
The bill is 1018 pages and I didn't even bother reading it. I did however go to the table of contents and NOWHERE did i see total cost and how it will be funded. So what makes you say it will pay for itself? If this bill passes, our taxes will most probably go up. FOR AN OPTION WHICH THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS PROBABLY WILL NOT EVEN USE. I am liberal and I think it is a horrible "solution" to our healthcare problem.
Well, it will pay for itself, because Obama and various other Democratic Congressmen won't sign or pass it unless it is deficit neutral. Now it's been explained that 2/3 or the bill is already going to be paid for by cutting waste in already in the health care system. For instance if you have to go to a GP, a specialist, and someone other type of doctor or whatever, right now they pay for each to run the same test. That is wasteful, and they will be putting in a system where they can just e-mail the result to 5 different doctors instead of doing 5 tests over and over again. There are other things like this that they are doing. These aren't just white house numbers they are CBO numbers. That leaves one third that still needs to be paid for. Obama's idea is that tax deductions regarding charity on the wealthiest be treated like tax deductions to charity for everyone else. That alone would pay for the other third. Whatever their ultimate solution to the budget, the bill will pay for itself. Watch the Montana town hall in which it is all explained.
That's an individual solution - it's not nationwide and doesn't reduce health care costs in the slightest. So you're against government getting involved in health care but you support the gov't telling us what we can and can't eat?
Yeah, that one trillion initial price tag is no biggie. Heck, even if it cost more than that when it is implemented(i.e. cash for clunkers) it still should be less than 2 or 3 trillion. Free morphine for everyone!
No. But as far as government intervention, there isnt any other solution to the obesity problem. Free healthcare will not solve anything, maybe it would even make it worse. Individual solutions work far better than government intervention. Heck, make health insurance like car insurance. Offer discounts for healthier lifestyles(i.e. clean driving records). I try not to get speeding tickets so that my car insurance stays low, how about do the same with health insurance? If someone is a lard ass and refuses to diet or continues to smoke, make it to where they pay higher premiums than the rest of us.
I know quite a bit about the "industry", from bought doctors, to the drug sharks, to the power of the AMA... I deal with the industry monday through friday. No, not every single doctor is in it for the money, but, they are human and will do what most people would do, see out for the all mighty dollar. If you change the system, and you limit the ways they can w**** themselves, and you make TREATMENT the key issue; then it will not be such a problem. Sometimes you dont see the forrest through the trees....
You have a point.... absolutes all the time are VERY dangerous. Perhaps I should explain with an example.... In chicago there is a liberal based elementary school which teaches tolerance (a good thing), but also is telling children there is no right way, or wrong way to spell, that everyone gets the same grade... well, THERE IS A RIGHT WAY TO SPELL, that is an absolute..
I read the article. I failed to find 8 things that will improve health care. Still upset about that whole FTC investigation? Poor baby. Yes, her reign as PM was wonderful for the UK economy. Great choice to quote. Go back to reading Ayn Rand. A little late now... Reagan, Clinton and the Bush's all knew the baby boomers were coming of age. At the least Clinton didnt spend us to oblivion like the others on the list. As for spending "other people's money", your thin covered reference to the wealthy paying too many taxes is interesting... the wealthiest Americans pay less in taxes than they did under Reagan. I guess the fact that the total cost of health care costs would decrease is lost on you.... or do you just not want to pay more into the system. Don't worry, no one is taking your 4000 acre ranch in Austin. Huh? Great, so then we have more people postponing necessary health care which could be treated early, because the deductible is too high? Guess what happens then? Even more bankruptcy and higher costs passed to the government. At the minimum you are letting the money roll over, that is good. Spending the money more carefully? $2,500? That is half the cost of an ER visit@! Agreed, but it will not solve the problem. You are correct, but it is putting a bandaid on a shotgun blast. Are you insane? I thought the purpose of healthcare is to cover people? Also, all that will happen is that ALL insurance will increase the number of procedures they will not cover. Nice gut thought, but not reality, the studies say otherwise. Excellent point, of course when you are sick, you will seek medical attention regardless. When an ER tells you it is $5,800 and you are violently ill, my guess is that you will not shop around. I am all for personal responsibilty, but many people are not responsible. Also, medicare is in great shape compared to the current free market system. How many people do you reallly think will do this? WOW, well you at the minimum admit it. You just said that we need reform... so, is your premise possibly true? You are spliting a hairs here... and I do not think that you get the full theory of health care. Besides, there will not be a public only option, so your premise is irrelevant. In both places you can go to the ER at any time. Also, the point is irrelevant because the system being discussed in American IS NOT LIKE THESE SYSTEMS. You also conveniently left out all the studies that show the level of satisfaction, care and cost all are better in the UK and Canada. Okay, nice, very flawed logic... so lets use your logic... "No one is without sin, so I should sin as often as I want." Damn right...... but wait, this is America, the land of free choice. So you fear healthcare change..... BUT you want the government to intrude and tell us what to eat and drink? Also, your corporation adds to the pollution problem, what about personal accountability?... hypocrite Yes, and 50 years ago they said a diet rich in protein and milk was the right diet, and who knows what it will be in another 50 years. Funny, for a man so interested in civil liberties and the constitution you sure seem to want the government to control what we eat and drink. Here is an idea for you, stop selling an organic avocado for $5 and maybe more that the wealthy in america will be able to eat well. Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society. Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.
Yeah sure. Thats if you believe doctors sit in the back room playing on the internet all day long because they don't have any patients. Most physicians are on the go all day long, so i don't think they are going to be able to fit more people into their busy schedule. Nice try though.
So explain to us how it will pay for itself? Telling my bank that i will make my car payment doesn't make the payment. If the government, in its infinite wisdom can cut 2/3 of health care cost, why can't the private industry? Also, nearly half of Britians health care employees are in administration. Great example in cutting waste.
Good. It makes me ashamed to have gone there today. The whole Whole Foods thing is sort of phoney. A right winger pretending to be some sort of a humanitarian just because he had a couple of liberal tendencies when he was a kid in Austin before he decided making money was the main thing in his life. IIRC correctly the EEOC had to force them to hire older people-- as after all if you eat their expensive yuppy food you never get old. A good example of why right wing eco-friendly etc. stuff is usually just a marketing thing.
