| Author | Message | ||
     Reepicheep |
First, I would do public education to what we are really trying to accomplish, because without truth and facts we can't make very good progress.
We vote for it, and we deal with it, because it is the right thing to do. Other things? The glaring omission of tort reform was huge. Medicine, like any other practice, is going to have some &*&^&ups. Some unavoidable, some avoidable, but they will happen. Malpractice and other insurance and extensive litigation adds a LOT of overhead that does little for quality medical care. I also think there is room for "premium" health care where you buy the best you want to buy, and "commodity" health care where you buy cheap but adequate care, or you force somebody else to buy you care. What's the difference? More student Doctors. More wait times. Reasonable trade offs for costs versus outcomes. Perhaps "we have internal controls that eliminate dangerous practices and practioners over time, but if things go wrong for you, you can't sue" laws for example. You can force us to buy you coverage, but it has to be coverage we can afford, and you can't sue if what we can afford goes badly. We tried our best, but no promises. If you want premium coverage, find a way to pay for it. (Message edited by reepicheep on September 21, 2016) (Message edited by reepicheep on September 21, 2016) | ||
| Macbuell |
I have no problem with people suing if someone fs up. If I go in for a simple procedure and someone decides to amputate my leg, someone needs to pay. What needs to happen is they need to change the system to a loser pays for legal fees system. That will get rid of the stupid, frivolous crap and what will be left will be justified cases. | ||
| Airbozo |
Tort reforms: I agree with the loser pays comment. I also feel there should be some sort of medical panel review for Dr's that make mistakes frequently that forces them to find another job if they can't do the job right. This is how it works for Teachers, who usually have more education than a lot of doctors. Here's a funny story; My sister in law needed another kidney and got put back on the list (she had 2 previous transplants). Her husband got tested and they found he was a good match so they went in for the procedure. Normal procedure requires a nurse to come in after reviewing the case with a Dr. and to mark the side of the body where the kidney is to be removed. Just before surgery the Dr. came in with several med students and interns to triple (or quadruple) check that he was having the correct procedure. They asked him his name, date of birth, family member names, pet names address, etc and when they wanted to verify he was there for a kidney removal, he jumped up and looked shocked and said "Bloody Hell! I'm here for a cyst removal on my foot!" He was the only one laughing... Yes he has a strange sense of humor, but being British, we forgive him. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'd say the right to sue for incompetence isn't something that I should have to pay for, when somebody else is making me pay for their medical care. It's a luxury feature. I'd demand good processes for detecting and removing incompetence in the systems which provide that care. But in terms of the individuals impacted, beggars can't be choosers. OK, so draw a line at overtly criminal behaviors like assault and murder, those would still apply. But a mediocre but qualified doctor makes a mistake? Sorry, you continue to get your free medical coverage, but you don't get to sue for pain and suffering and other damages. You sign away those rights before you get free medical coverage. (And this sounds cold, but I would probably avail myself to that kind of deal quite often also... if I am going to have a broken leg diagnosed and set, I would happily pay less in return for loosing my ability to get damages for malpractice). | ||
| Airbozo |
Sounds like my car warranty. Unless they are grossly negligent, you just have to continue taking the car back until they get it right. I do feel that simple mistakes that are made, that don't permanently affect you should have limits to making things right, not providing paychecks for generations. I do feel that there should be some sort of "incentive" to NOT make mistakes and consequences if it continues to happen. Free is never free. Someone pays for it. | ||
| Macbuell |
My coverage isn't free? What Free Coverage are you talking about? | ||
| Sifo |
The problem with loser pays is that how deep your pockets are matters. Going to court is never cut and dried. There is always the chance of losing. Now if you have a million dollar lawsuit, the hospital may spend a good percentage of that fighting your lawsuit. If they spend half a million defending themselves, and manage to win, largely because you can't afford that sort of representation in the first place, can you really afford to risk being hit with their half million dollar legal fees, in addition to what ever damages you have already accrued? I agree with the need for tort reform, but a simple loser pays doesn't really work well for the little guy in many cases. BTW, this is a good discussion. Why don't we take it to a thread that deserves it. It's completely off topic, and possibly a purposeful distraction from the actual topic. | ||
| Court |
>>>someone needs to pay. Ok. Does $68,000,000 sound about right for loss of a finger due to negligence ? | ||
| Aesquire |
Not really... The lies told to sell these things and the real world results of socialization are important to this election. The right wing pundit view is Obamacare is a Cloward-Piven "ruin the system so you can impose a new one" technique. ( Supposed to fail ) A left wing pundit who wasn't an Obama fan would point out the incredible corruption and how the large companies that bribed Obama got sweet deals that you pay for. ( Failed from corruption.. but it would work with more ideological purity, and far more money taken from the Proles ) And a left wing pundit who is an Obama fan would just lie, because that's his job. Carry on. To solve health care we need to address the high insurance costs of litigation, the role of government in taking the money and giving it to those who bribe the politicians, and the guys who bribe the politicians to make sure we have to give them our money whether we want to or not. | ||
| Court |
http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/15/news/economy/aetna -obamacare/ Another one bites the dust . . . | ||
| Macbuell |
Come on, Court. Lets at least use a little common sense. Of course I'm not supporting something like that. Good lord, man. | ||
| H0gwash |
Sifo- I would not call my support of Hillary unwavering. I tend to value socially liberal and economically conservative ideas. In this case I don't claim to be fighting for smaller government. I voted for Bernie knowing he would lose. While everyone has their right to snark, I'm not a fan of the LOLCAT format so much. The images can be cheap looking and imply that their content is shallow. I did enjoy the New Yorker style political cartoons without words. Strangely I enjoyed the CARLOS DANGER thread because the headlines were also well written. It could be I'm just a snob. | ||
| Macbuell |
How can you be economically conservative and vote for Bernie? Those two are polar opposites. If you are socially liberal and economically conservative, you should look at the Libertarian platform. That's basically what they say they stand for. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
There has long been a solution to OBAMACARE. I got more than f'n tired of trying to convince the powers that be of solutions. So for the last 3 years overseas I have been working on coverage models, private EMH'S, electronic payments without insurance intervention & government red tape. Partnered with Medx from Netherlands, we are in 20 countries and expanding. Across borders, across languages, across different currencies - we enable patient care. Pity America still has its' head up its' collective Ass. (Pun intended) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-house -is-on-fire--8466 | ||
| Ducbsa |
Bill has done other similar things, too. Is he so arrogant that he thinks he can say anything and no one will care or is he trying to sabotage Hillary because he loathes her, but has been stuck with her for political reasons? http://heatst.com/politics/is-bill-clinton-trying- to-tank-hillarys-campaign/ | ||
| Court |
>>>I did enjoy the New Yorker style political cartoons without words. Where is Thomas Nast when we need him? | ||
| H0gwash |
How can you be economically conservative and vote for Bernie? I think the current 'social justice' idea should have high value. I generally respect libertarians. I would respect them more if they won more local elections. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I generally respect libertarians. I would respect them more if they won more local elections. I am a libertarian at heart. Unfortunately, a libertarian vote is a wasted vote. I wish it wasn't so. | ||
| Macbuell |
Voting Libertarian is not a wasted vote if the only other option is Hillary. I'm not speaking for me but for those people out there that cannot for whatever reason vote for Trump. (Message edited by macbuell on September 22, 2016) | ||
| Reepicheep |
The tea party was on the right track when it started. Fiscal conservatives, socially liberal. Which terrified the establishment professional politicians on both sides. They are screwed if that ever gets traction. Being a grass roots movement, it was easy to vilify by misrepresentations and infiltrations. That will always be true, but at some point the people will be so pissed off at both parties that it won't matter, and a third party will emerge. It's kind of happening now with Trump getting far more support than anyone expected. A huge block of his voters are voting for him "because he isn't Hillary" and another big chunk is voting for him because he annoys the establishment republicans. | ||
| Pwnzor |
if the only other option is Hillary But she's not... cannot for whatever reason vote for Trump. I can't either, but I may force myself to do so. We cannot let Hillary in. We at least have the option of impeaching Trump. Hillary will be impossible to remove. | ||
| Sifo |
Fiscally conservative vs. socially liberal? I guess it depends on what you mean by socially liberal. Not caring what goes on behind the bedroom door? Very compatible. BOcare? Not compatible at all. Social justice? I again, don't see the compatibility. I'm also socially liberal. That's pretty much overridden by my fiscally conservative side though. Big social programs would be nice, but tend to be very expensive, poorly run, and cost ineffective when compared to other solutions. Arnold Schwarzenegger claimed to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He seemed to be more socially liberal though, so that drove him to expensive programs that cost lots of money. No doubt he would have liked to hold the budget down, but was more driven by his socially liberal side. The reality of it is that you have to choose either fiscal conservatism, or social liberalism. You really can't do both. | ||
| Macbuell |
I guess what I am saying is ... as long as it is NOT a vote for Hillary, it is a good vote IMO. | ||
| H0gwash |
If I could only have one I would always choose social liberalism. If I could have a bit of both I would vote against the most expensive programs that benefitted the fewest people as a nod to fiscal conservatism. | ||
| Sifo |
I would vote against the most expensive programs that benefitted the fewest people as a nod to fiscal conservatism. So it has to be worse than BOcare? That's not much of a fiscally conservative side. | ||
| H0gwash |
I think some option of a medical safety net is wise for the country considering widespread health related bankruptcy costs. I would only support Obamacare in the absence of anything else as damage control. You may consider that conservatively liberal and that's fine by me. edit: Conservatively liberal WTF? I meant economically liberal! (Message edited by h0gwash on September 22, 2016) | ||
| Aesquire |
We HAD a safety net programs. Medicaid/Medicare. Obamacare is an extra layer of cost & bureaucracy. Less efficient & designed to pay back those who bribe Obama. You can lie to yourself that multi millions in bribes for payback are campaign contributions but when the quid pro quo is obvious and in the billions it's time to be honest. Take the leading get oldsters a theater discount company. Big bribes, cash & direct advertising for Obama, handed a billion dollar plus semi monopoly on selling supplement insurance. Making people pay for wealth redistribution is not liberal. Not libertarian. That's Progressive aka Communist with a paint job. Like "intelligent design". Creationism with the serial numbers filed off. Both are change the name dishonest. For the fans of creationism, I won't argue the faith behind it. Sure, a sky god makes sense when you look at the gaping holes in Darwinism. Calling a faith based philosophy hard science is dishonest. Thinking Baal did it ( or your creation gods of choice ) while saying out loud "guiding principles", is as dishonest as the name Progressive. Actually meaning "totalitarian aristocracy with a different name to fool the ignorant". Go start a thread on how Trump can't be related to apes because of the comb over if you want to. This one is about the predator and parasite that is Hillary and her ilk. Hillary is taking some rest time. Ostensibly to recover from her mild, near fatal, feel sympathy for me illness. Really because she's reached the point where every new lie contradicts an older one. So it's best to play canned speeches and sound bite commercials and avoid answering questions. There's another option than Hillary? Who? "It's Just Joe"? ( what reporters say when Biden makes ignorant & insane comments. ) Bernie got screwed, in multiple layers, by the DNC. They rejected the rebel candidate with a vengeance. Even if, especially if, he only lost because of vote fraud, he won't get the job. The libertarian candidate is just there to defeat Trump. Feel free to blame the Establishment, both Parties & the illuminati for that.... but 3rd party candidates are in this context only spoilers for the Party Elite. In this case it's obviously a tool. The irony is it's the elites for Jeb & Hillary pushing it. Me, can't stand Trump. Given the choice between the Game Show Host & the Acolyte of Alinsky? And that is the choice. | ||
| Aesquire |
HOgwash... George Bush was Conservatively Liberal. You like me are socially libertarian. ( NOT Libertarian party ) The name Liberal got stolen & corrupted by the left. America & Enlightenment Europe are "Liberal" civilization. No more slavery equal rights human potential respect for the individual citizen. Modern American Progressivism is the opposite. You have to look past the century of lies at the core of leftism. It's the sons of wealthy folk that Earned the wealth wanting to overthrow the existing aristocracy and take that power through the great con. Part of the con is to change the names of the jobs. Putin is for example, a Czar. King. But he takes the name of public servant. The hundreds of millions murdered in the name of keeping that power show the truth. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'm with you Hogwash. We, as a country, have never left people to just die in the streets when we can help them. And we never will. So there will always be some kind of public health system. Lets just be transparent, rigorous, honest, and practical about what we can and can't do, and what freedoms people may have to give up in order to be subsidized. Like, for example, you can't drink or smoke if you are on a government subsidy. |
