My initial response was to tell you to substitute the word “insurance company” for “government” up there, and you’ll come up with EXACTLY the system we’re under now. But honestly, how could you NOT realize, as you’re typing that, that this is the exact system we have now? Have you no experience at all with medical insurance?
With the added negative that the insurance company has a fiduciary duty to squeeze every last drop of profit out that it can, and it does this mostly by denying care. At least the government isn’t under a legal obligation to increase its stock price.
Starving Artist: the triumph of Too Long over Didn’t Read.
Oh, all right, I’ll read it. . .
. . . sorry, couldn’t wade through it.
Just think how much longer they would be if he included any of that “cite” stuff!! Really, he’s doing you a favor. But I’ll boil it down for you: I don’t have proof, I don’t need proof, I simply know. If you were as smart as me, you’d know it too, but since you don’t, then you must not be as smart. Q.E.D.
Too Many Lawsuits? My Foot | HuffPost Latest News The claim that law suits are a big problem in bogus. A mistake by a doctor or hospital can destroy a persons life. Yet ,only about 1 in 8 with cause sue. Then the,Lotto payoffs that Bush complained about are rare. The courts frequently drop them a couple time before it is settled. When they payoff early, the amount and the company involved get shielded from the public. It is very one sided now. They want it to be worse.
Here’s what really puts the lie to Starving Artists anti-government paranoia: We’ve had government healthcare, here in America, for decades already.
People on Medicare like it more than people like private plans.
That’s the program that exceeded its initial cost estimates by a factor of almost ten, is currently running at a deficit, and is scheduled to go bankrupt completely in a few years? That Medicare?
Regards,
Shodan
What, its cost estimates in 1965? Old people are living longer than they used to. Wasn’t that the goal of the program? I’d call that a spectacular success.
You are right that there are cost problems, but they aren’t insurmountable.
If we change nothing, the Medicare Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2017. But since seniors vote at higher rates than any other demographic, I think Congress will figure out something by then. I predict a combination of tax raises and cost containment, more of the former than the latter.
What we need to do is scrap our fee for service scheme, which encourages more care and not better care, and start paying doctors an hourly wage instead. We could also increase the supply of doctors by giving more people free rides through medical school.
There’s also the problem of Big Pharma charging obscene prices for drugs. We could easily bring those costs down if the political will existed to do so. Whether our politicians are willing to turn down the truckloads of cash they’re getting from drug companies and do the right thing remains to be seen… I’m guessing no.
Something definitely has got to give, and it will probably have to reach crisis mode before any substantial reform happens. It’s not that we lack the capability to deal with it, it’s that the monied interests are standing in the way of real reform. But an enraged senior population will force Congress to do the right thing, eventually.
As if it isn’t ugly enough, employer based health companies are shielded from damages caused by their medical decisions. The Supreme Court decreed it in 1987. So if they deny coverage and you die or get seriously worse, tough shit. they are free to do it to the next policy holder . Our system is fixed in the favor of insurance companies. They are big business after all.
Are you serious? Health insurance companies get sued all the time.
(And btw, how did the insurance companies manage to pay off the Supreme Court, as your last two sentences imply?)
No they don’t. No insurance company has ever been sued. I read this once here - it was posted by someone who I can’t remember. Anyway, I believe that this is true, so it is. And don’t bother finding any cites that show the contrary, because I won’t believe them. I know what I know.*
*brought to you by the Starving Artist debate strategy consortium
To add to that point, the date where the fund will be exhausted is based also on having no mechanism to control prices.
If the current reform does not include a cost reducing mechanism like a public option (many prices paid by medicare for procedures and materials are based on what the private industry is charging now), then we can count on a self fulfilling prophecy on Medicare that will be then more costly to take care of if nothing is changed now.
Employer based group health insurance is governed by the federal ERISA statutes. If you have group health insurance from your employer, you cannot sue your insurance company for punitive damages. If they deny your benefits, and you develop complications, you can sue for the benefits, but no punitive damages. The insurance company can only be compelled to to pay the benefits they should have paid in the first place. There are no consequences for denying benefits in violation of your policy.
They do not have to bribe them. they pick someone who is already on board and put them on the court ,like Roberts, Thomas and Scalia.
Firms That Self-Insure Win Key Supreme Court Ruling Note I specifically said employer based.
Except for the crushing burden of moral responsibility.
I didn’t know that part. Already pretty much freaked out about this moral vacuum, but this part I didn’t know. So, no shit? Even if you showed up in court with signed memos from the CEO, “Hey, lets fuck this guy Fear Itself over, big time and downtown…”, it wouldn’t matter, even if you could prove malice, never mind negligence?
So, let me get this straight: if there is no consequence to doing it to one poor dumb shmuck, there is no more consequence doing it to ten PDS? A hundred? A thousand?
Who’s the fuck’s stupid goddam idea was that?! Oh, wait, its coming to me…
It was either the dirty fucking hippies, or ACORN.
Thanks. I misunderstood what gonzomax meant by ‘damages.’
Are you kidding me? You honestly think Supreme Court justices are picked by the insurance companies?
That’s what my attorney tells me, and they specialize in suing insurance companies. When Mrs. Fear’s doctor tried to get her into a stem cell transplant program, Blue Cross refused to pay for it. By the time we worked our way through the appeals process (denied/denied/denied) and got an attorney, she was no longer eligible because her health had deteriorated and she no longer met the requirements. Even if we won the lawsuit, Blue Cross can only be compelled to pay for the stem cell transplant, which she can no longer get. So they ran out the clock, and don’t have to pay anything.
In a very real sense, she is the victim of an insurance company death panel.
If you want to go shoot a couple of them, I’ll swear you were at my house playing bridge.
Yes, that is exactly what gonzomax meant. You’ve hit the nail on the head there. Yes, precisely. Spot on. The insurance companies have a secret cabal that chooses Supreme court justices.
Or perhaps… Just maybe… there is the tiniest chance that perhaps you have misunderstood gonzomax .
AGAIN
Do you see a pattern forming here?
They don’t have a secret cabal, its rather public, actually. The laws that made it kosher to fuck over Mr and Mrs Fear Itself were done right before our very eyes, and I didn’t even know about it till he told me.
Now, I suspect they’re mostly Republicans, but I’m so pissed right now, I could give a rat’s. I want them all stripped nekkid and paraded through the streets for people to throw garbage at. Then tie them up to dumpsters so winos and dogs can pee on them.
People do this shit with a gun, we put them in jail, even if they don’t hurt you while doing it! Steal your money and hurt you doing it, and they walk around breathing our air.