quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter To be fair, CA is hardly typical. Several U.S. states don't even have income tax.

BC is on the high end in Canada, as well. As I said earlier, you can't just compare fed:fed or province:state because the division of powers are different. BTW, I only used California because it was the state cited to me.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

this has been a fascinating topic. it has brought further definition to all the the TA liberals' (yes, i hate that term but for convenience's sake...) ideological framework(s). makes a nice change than arguing with those stupid conservatives

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss 2 words: tort reform. Why do you think doctors peform so many extra tests? Because they have to, due to the industry being rampant with ambulance chasing lawyers just waiting for a misdiagnosis so they can get after a multi-million dollar lawsuit; the doctors almost HAVE to do it to protect themselves from bankruptcy. They aren't out scheming for ways to make more money, as Obama suggested those evil pediatricians do with removing tonsils. A limit on lawsuit amounts could vastly bring down healthcare costs.... malpractice insurance is also getting insanely high because of this, which ultimately raises the costs too. Tort reform would help immensely... however it never will with Democrats in charge because the trial lawyers are the 2nd highest financial contributing group to their party.

In 2004, the CBO "pegged medical malpractice costs at 2 percent of U.S. health spending":

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc...Malpractice.pdf

I've also seen it as 1%:

http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

And somewhere else as .4% (sorry, can't find the link).

You can read more here:

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/...t-Oct2004_0.pdf
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civ...les.cfm?ID=9125
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=az9qxQZNmf0o

Premiums are not being driven by malpractice lawsuits, no matter what the insurance industries want to claim and want you to believe. They are driving up their prices by their own fuzzy economics, nothing more.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 In 2004, the CBO "pegged medical malpractice costs at 2 percent of U.S. health spending": http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/49xx/doc...Malpractice.pdf I've also seen it as 1%: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf And somewhere else as .4% (sorry, can't find the link). You can read more here: http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/...t-Oct2004_0.pdf http://www.citizen.org/congress/civ...les.cfm?ID=9125 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...id=az9qxQZNmf0o Premiums are not being driven by malpractice lawsuits, no matter what the insurance industries want to claim and want you to believe. They are driving up their prices by their own fuzzy economics, nothing more.

Malpractice is more of a plague on certain specialties rather than the medical profession as a whole. In total, it is only roughly 1% of costs, but for OB/GYN and for neurosurgery, malpractice is a BIG deal. So yes, overall tort reform would have little impact to medical costs, but when it comes to making sure we have enough people around to deliver babies and operate on brains, tort reform would make a huge impact for the better.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Premiums are not being driven by malpractice lawsuits, no matter what the insurance industries want to claim and want you to believe. They are driving up their prices by their own fuzzy economics, nothing more.

I heard a surgeon talking on CNBC the other day saying that 15% of medical costs (about $350 billion per year) comes from doctors practicing "cover your ass" medicine to avoid the liabilities associated with malpractice suits. His point, which I was trying to make also, is that putting a cap on malpractice suits would lower medical costs because doctors wouldn't be doing so much of that "lawsuit preventative" extra testing.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I heard a surgeon talking on CNBC the other day saying that 15% of medical costs (about $350 billion per year) comes from doctors practicing "cover your ass" medicine to avoid the liabilities associated with malpractice suits. His point, which I was trying to make also, is that putting a cap on malpractice suits would lower medical costs because doctors wouldn't be doing so much of that "lawsuit preventative" extra testing.

I've also heard similar testimony's from doctors and surgeons. In our PT practice we have liability insurance as well, but thankfully has never been used in the 11 years we've been open (knock on wood). I don't deny that there are certain cases that involve high costs with malpractice insurance, and I'd surmise that there could be a wide range of annual premiums depending on the type of practice. But in general the statistics simply don't bear it out as being a primary factor regarding overall costs:

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civ...les.cfm?ID=9125

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Conyers to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Making Health Care a ‘Right’ Wednesday, July 29, 2009 By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter (CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a recent National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said he is introducing a constitutional amendment that would establish health care as “a right” for all Americans. “We need a real serious bill and, by the way, the fundamental question, ‘Is health care a constitutional right?’” he said. “I mean, do you have a right to health care in the American system of government or not?” “Well, we believe that people do and we’re introducing a constitutional amendment just to make it real clear so that you don’t have to infer or assume that that’s a given and all that.”

In order for you to receive health care someone else has to either expend time or property. To claim a "right" to health care is to claim a "right" to someone else's time .. that is, a right to a portion of their life: whatever portion of their life it takes for them to either render the health service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. Who in the do you think you are to claim a portion of someone else's life as YOURS?

So my question is, if somehow, someway, some amendment was drawn up and actually passed that says that healthcare is a "constitutional right" and there were no doctors, how would people be able to claim their so called "right?" How can something be a right if you are dependent on the actions of others to attain it? Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all that, sure. Do I have a "right" to a cellphone? food? A computer? These are all things that must be earned or acquired by mutual exchange. That's just how I see it.

I'm fine with addressing problems with healthcare like price inflation, proper regulation, tort reform, etc. But I am not a supported of any sort of universal mandate single payor type of system.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka In order for you to receive health care someone else has to either expend time or property. To claim a "right" to health care is to claim a "right" to someone else's time .. that is, a right to a portion of their life: whatever portion of their life it takes for them to either render the health service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. Who in the do you think you are to claim a portion of someone else's life as YOURS?

I dunno, should we be asking the same of firefighters when our house is burning down? Should we be asking the same of policemen when someone is breaking into our house?

Or better yet, this didn't really seem to be such a huge issue for most Republicans when the SCHIP bill was passed. Why was so little hubub raised when children are given government health care but not adults?

quote:

So my question is, if somehow, someway, some amendment was drawn up and actually passed that says that healthcare is a "constitutional right" and there were no doctors, how would people be able to claim their so called "right?" How can something be a right if you are dependent on the actions of others to attain it? Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all that, sure. Do I have a "right" to a cellphone? food? A computer? These are all things that must be earned or acquired by mutual exchange. That's just how I see it.

I know. I just happen to disagree a little bit. Many of the things that we describe as "rights" are dependent upon the jobs of others. Yes, we do have a constitutional right to life and liberty, but do we not rely heavily on those on the judicial system, many of which happen to work for the government and are payed by our tax $, to guarantee and enforce those rights?

quote:

I'm fine with addressing problems with healthcare like price inflation, proper regulation, tort reform, etc. But I am not a supported of any sort of universal mandate single payor type of system.

Again, something that we disagree on. I think there are certain levels involved with basic health care "rights" that should be given and are currently not given now. Unfortunately I'm a little pressed today and won't be able to talk further on it until later.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I dunno, should we be asking the same of firefighters when our house is burning down? Should we be asking the same of policemen when someone is breaking into our house?

I assume you paid for your house yourself, and you paid your taxes which provide for those services. I hope you're not implying that I should foot the bill for your house.

quote:

Or better yet, this didn't really seem to be such a huge issue for most Republicans when the SCHIP bill was passed. Why was so little hubub raised when children are given government health care but not adults?

Because adults should be exactly that...adults who can responsibly take care of themselves (yes, there are exceptions, but I don't subscribe to 40 million people simply are victims of the man when so many of them voluntarily choose to risk it an not have insurance and then expect a bailout like so many others when things don't go their way, or the millions of illegal immigrants who we would also be asked to subsidize despite their non-tax payor status). Children are different.

quote:

I know. I just happen to disagree a little bit. Many of the things that we describe as "rights" are dependent upon the jobs of others. Yes, we do have a constitutional right to life and liberty, but do we not rely heavily on those on the judicial system, many of which happen to work for the government and are payed by our tax $, to guarantee and enforce those rights?

To enforce rights, not to provide them or to subsidize them at the cost of others.

quote:

Again, something that we disagree on. I think there are certain levels involved with basic health care "rights" that should be given and are currently not given now. Unfortunately I'm a little pressed today and won't be able to talk further on it until later.

Basic, perhaps, but don't tell me that a person who doesn't pay for their coverage is somehow entitled to all of the bells and whistles of premium care that I pay thousands of dollars for. Maybe we pay too much for our healthcare here (and I don't dispute that), however you get what you pay for.

It would be nice if the Supreme Court made public statements on health care reform. I'd love to hear their views.

___________________
The Democratic Party

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do I have a "right" to a cellphone? food? A computer? These are all things that must be earned or acquired by mutual exchange. That's just how I see it.

Eh, you should see some of the rights these 20th century constitutions proclaim. For example, a few guarantee a "right" to equal pay for equal work. Just imagine what it would entail for a court to take such rights seriously...