Alpharatz Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Up in Iowa the other day an infant was found in a tote outside in subzero wx. Apparently not from Iowa so not covered by Iowa M.A. No one at the time knew who the kid was. Let's see.......HeloDude.....you get to make the decision.....hauled free by the local ambulance? Yes or No? seen in the local emergency dept? Yes or No? Admitted to Peds at U. of Iowa? Kid has no wallet and is a John Doe. Grandaddy shows up from Terra Haute and instantly has an asthma attack. M.A. thru Indiana (at least that is what admissions is told). Admit or out the door? Grandaddy will be getting a call from a personal injury mouthpiece in a few days Helo Fellow...hows YOUR insurance? Oh? It's free market and nothing written for "deliberate" harmful actions. ...........................I forgot one. "Dad...booted out of Rottcee for a heart murmur....since i'm a free market fellow like you i'll just pay cash if I can find coverage.....you got any? Cash I mean"........ 2
HeloDude Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 I think you started drinking a little too early tonight...then again, you may be pretty far east of me. Children are the responsibility of their parents/guardians. If the local government decides they want to pay for the kid, then that's fine...I'm not an anarchist. But you're comparing a freak situation with routine care and food stamps? Same with the ER. Do I think the parents should be billed after all of this is done...bet your ass I do. And if they can't take care of their children, then they're negligent and should be dealt with via the courts. There's an incentive for people to have kids who can't afford them or take care of them properly...one reason the out of wedlock birthrate is pretty damn high, especially amongst the poorest. Or are you going to tell me that everything is just great? You're also forgetting that there are charities who help people in cases such as this scenario, in terms of covering bills, etc. Or am I lying and that there are no charities that help other people in times of need? If so, then I've been giving my money (voluntarily) away to fake organizations. I have no problems paying local taxes as well as having a federal tax system...like I said, I'm not an anarchist, and I believe in government, just limited, especially at the federal level. I can choose to live in a certain municipality or not...I can choose to live in a certain State...or not. When it comes to the federal government...see what I'm getting at? Oh, and we had hospitals before we had an income tax, we had roads before an income tax, we had prisons, police, firefighters, etc. Now another question for you--do you disagree that we have a wealth redistribution system in the US, especially at the federal level? If you want to voluntarily give your wealth away to certain groups, then go for it! Stop bitching and help people if you truly believe they need help. Government is pretty damn inefficient and takes money with the threat of force...in case you haven't learned. 2
Fuzz Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Up in Iowa the other day an infant was found in a tote outside in subzero wx. Apparently not from Iowa so not covered by Iowa M.A. No one at the time knew who the kid was. Let's see.......HeloDude.....you get to make the decision.....hauled free by the local ambulance? Yes or No? seen in the local emergency dept? Yes or No? Admitted to Peds at U. of Iowa? Kid has no wallet and is a John Doe. Grandaddy shows up from Terra Haute and instantly has an asthma attack. M.A. thru Indiana (at least that is what admissions is told). Admit or out the door? Grandaddy will be getting a call from a personal injury mouthpiece in a few days Helo Fellow...hows YOUR insurance? Oh? It's free market and nothing written for "deliberate" harmful actions. ...........................I forgot one. "Dad...booted out of Rottcee for a heart murmur....since i'm a free market fellow like you i'll just pay cash if I can find coverage.....you got any? Cash I mean"........ Holy shit dude, are you capable of writing out a coherent and logical thought? 1
pawnman Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Sometimes, you just flat out can't get covered. This specific person rarely drinks alcohol, has never smoked and stays active (albeit not as active as a military member.) I'm not arguing that the ACA has it's flaws.... I don't believe that I should be paying for some fatty who smokes a pack a day and shits out 4 kids on welfare. Like most things in politics, it's the middle class that gets screwed.. those who make enough to not qualify for substantial subsidies, but get bent over backwards when it comes to premiums. However, not denying someone based on pre existing conditions, and then making it moderately affordable for them is something I am surprised is getting so much backlash. I wish the overall costs healthcare in America would come down and all this would be a moot point, but lucrative profit is what keeps the good ol' USA on the forefront of medical technology. I'm never going to be able to convince y'all that the ACA is fantastic (and I'm not saying it is,) but realize that it is helping some well deserving people in a good way. Again, I'm not sure why you think I should be paying for your coverage. That's where the "moderately affordable" comes from, BTW...people who would be paying sky-high insurance rates based on their risks get a break, and people who would be paying tiny premiums (particularly the young, healthy folks, college age kids who really don't need health insurance) instead pay bloated premiums to make up the difference. I'm curious how well this will all work out when everyone has insurance and decides they're going to get their damn money's worth. Ever try to make an appointment with a specialist on the base? That's what the entire healthcare system is about to become. Having everyone insured, especially through government-backed programs, is going to INCREASE, not DECREASE health care prices. It's much easier to bill a faceless bureaucracy with a limitless budget thousands of dollars for a box of kleenex and fresh sheets. The biggest reason health insurance costs have skyrocketed they way they have is because the people buying the service (patients) are so far separated from the people paying for it (insurance companies). 1
morenoj135 Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 The need for the ACA is the high cost of medical care ans the high cost of medical care is caused by ....... you guessed it medical practice insurance paid by the doctor in case you sue because he screwed up. Solution is found in two words - Tort Reform.
Alpharatz Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Holy shit dude, are you capable of writing out a coherent and logical thought? Sure "dude". Not one of you has made the decision I asked about. YOU are on the ambulance crew. An infant is half frozen. You have no idea who the infant is, thus you have no insurance information. Do you transport the child to the hospital or not? IF you refuse and a good samaritan transports to the local emergency department, should the child be adimtted and treated? "on call actuary to the emergency department" "stat".
HeloDude Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Sure "dude". Not one of you has made the decision I asked about. YOU are on the ambulance crew. An infant is half frozen. You have no idea who the infant is, thus you have no insurance information. Do you transport the child to the hospital or not? IF you refuse and a good samaritan transports to the local emergency department, should the child be adimtted and treated? "on call actuary to the emergency department" "stat". Read what I wrote. I said (or definitely implied) that of course you react in a true emergency situation...but you bill the parents/guardians afterwards. If they can't pay then you garnish their wages, repossess their property, or have the courts decide if they can truly care for that child as children are the repsonbilty of the parents/guardians and not the State. And I'm surprised you're not smart enough to realize (given the intelligent writing you show in your posts...hell, my posts aren't the best but at least they're mostly coherent), that there are plenty of charities who help with bills in situations such as these. Should I stop voluntarily giving my property to charities? And why are you bitching about answering your question? You have failed to answer ours.
Buddy Spike Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Sure "dude". Not one of you has made the decision I asked about. YOU are on the ambulance crew. An infant is half frozen. You have no idea who the infant is, thus you have no insurance information. Do you transport the child to the hospital or not? IF you refuse and a good samaritan transports to the local emergency department, should the child be adimtted and treated? "on call actuary to the emergency department" "stat". This is a strawman argument and has very little to do with the ACA. 2
Homestar Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 Sure "dude". Not one of you has made the decision I asked about. YOU are on the ambulance crew. An infant is half frozen. You have no idea who the infant is, thus you have no insurance information. Do you transport the child to the hospital or not? IF you refuse and a good samaritan transports to the local emergency department, should the child be adimtted and treated? "on call actuary to the emergency department" "stat". False choice re: ACA. Health care professionals have very strong opinions on helping the most needy, especially children.. Here's a scenario for you to answer: fat, chain smoking trailer trash can't afford their diabetes meds. Are you going to pay for them so they can live? This is what America's problem will be re: ACA. 1
338skybolt Posted February 14, 2014 Posted February 14, 2014 ...lucrative profit is what keeps the good ol' USA on the forefront of medical technology. Is this a bad thing?
pawnman Posted February 15, 2014 Posted February 15, 2014 The need for the ACA is the high cost of medical care ans the high cost of medical care is caused by ....... you guessed it medical practice insurance paid by the doctor in case you sue because he screwed up. Solution is found in two words - Tort Reform. Malpractice insurance is the smallest part of the high costs of health care. https://westvirginia.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/tort-reform-fails-to-reduce-health-care-costs-or-improve-patient-safety/ https://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/ https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 From the last link: According to actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That's a rounding error. Liability isn't even the tail on the cost dog. It's a hair on the end of the tail.
Vertigo Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 The need for the ACA is the high cost of medical care ans the high cost of medical care is caused by ....... you guessed it medical practice insurance paid by the doctor in case you sue because he screwed up. Solution is found in two words - Tort Reform. Not even close. While not trying to be rude, this statement shows you have no real idea as to what is driving the costs of medical care.
matmacwc Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Be rude, I don't agree with Obamacare at all but he is not making sense.
HeloDude Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Not sure how many of you folks caught wind of this, but apparently the 'Obamacare Architect' has said that to pass the bill, they needed to rely on the 'stupidity of the American voter' among other things the Dems and the administration purposely kept from being 'transparent' (ie you couldn't pass Obamacare as a 'tax' even though that's what SCOTUS used to uphold the hold). Funny, I agree with Gruber--the American people, as a whole, are pretty stupid. But hey, we get the kind of government we deserve. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/
TreeA10 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 They lied? Not always. "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."
Red Fox Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Not even close. While not trying to be rude, this statement shows you have no real idea as to what is driving the costs of medical care. Easy money inflates whatever it targets. Low mortgage rates in general cause higher home prices (until the bubble bursts, like in Vegas). Easier access to student loans have increased tuition rates. This appiles to health care costs also. People via insurance and/or government subsidies have easier access to health care, thus increasing the demand, and thus increasing costs. Medical malpractive is not the primary cause for the rising costs, but has affected some regions and specialties. I read in a Forbes article where some doctors in Dade County, FL have 1400% higher malpractice insurance premiums compared to their counterparts in MN. That does have an impact. There are regions that had difficulty in attracting certain specialties because of malpractice suits. That also impacts cost. Mississippi used to be notorious, but several years ago, passes tort reform legislation. Complicated subject with no easy explanation or solution. Unless we want to continue passing our debt to future generations, someone or some group is going to get screwed. It's a zero sum game. I don't mind paying a little more if it helps a large group who for whatever reason have had trouble getting insurance, like pre-existing conditions, lay-offs, etc.
Vertigo Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Easy money inflates whatever it targets. Low mortgage rates in general cause higher home prices (until the bubble bursts, like in Vegas). Easier access to student loans have increased tuition rates. This appiles to health care costs also. People via insurance and/or government subsidies have easier access to health care, thus increasing the demand, and thus increasing costs. Medical malpractive is not the primary cause for the rising costs, but has affected some regions and specialties. I read in a Forbes article where some doctors in Dade County, FL have 1400% higher malpractice insurance premiums compared to their counterparts in MN. That does have an impact. There are regions that had difficulty in attracting certain specialties because of malpractice suits. That also impacts cost. Mississippi used to be notorious, but several years ago, passes tort reform legislation. Complicated subject with no easy explanation or solution. Unless we want to continue passing our debt to future generations, someone or some group is going to get screwed. It's a zero sum game. I don't mind paying a little more if it helps a large group who for whatever reason have had trouble getting insurance, like pre-existing conditions, lay-offs, etc. Malpractice payments account for less than 1% of the nation's health care costs each year.The size of malpractice damage awards has remained steady since 1991. Adjusted for inflation, the average malpractice payment has actually decreased since then. The number of payments for malpractice judgments of $1 million or more has never exceeded one-half of one percent of the annual total number of malpractice payments dating back to 1991. So while healthcare costs have risen drastically; malpractice payouts have actually decreased when adjusted for inflation. So are you telling me that because malpractice is costing us less that's what's driving up the cost of healthcare? In 2003 Texas passed a comprehensive tort reform amendment to their Constitution. In 10 years time they have seen a reduction by 2/3 the number of claims and a fall of 22% in average payout. Yet from 2005 - 2009 (only 4 years) healthcare costs in Texas rose 36.1%; nearly four times the inflation rate and over four times the population growth. So malpractice costs when down significantly, yet healthcare costs rose significantly... What does drive up the cost of health care is doctors ordering excessive and unnecessary care (i.e. ordering a slew of tests that are unnecessary or of marginal value) because the doctor will get paid for ordering those services. 38 states already have tort reform laws in place limiting liability and 34 have laws limiting punitive damages... yet with well over half the nation living in states that have enacted tort reform we have not seen any positive effect on rising health care costs. Are you saying it's the malpractice insurance that's costing so much? How much would you guess malpractice insurance to be for a year? $20K? $50K? $100K? This doctor pays $2947.48 a year, the doctor above him pays $6 more a year. Other doctor's in his area pay a bit more depending on their specialty but only one group (OB/GYN) he felt paid too much.
Red Fox Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Vertigo, I'm not arguing that malpractice is the primary cause. I specifically stated it wasn't and simply stated that some regions in the past have been affected by malpractice law suits and gave one example. I think you are trying to find an argument where one doesn't exist. No need to burn your brain bytes trying to convince me of your point. Did you read my first paragraph? IMO, that is one of the reasons, because "easy" money is by nature inflationary (simple economics). Did you read my last paragraph that stated I believe it's a complicated issue? There is not a singular cause nor are there simple solutions.
Vertigo Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Vertigo, I'm not arguing that malpractice is the primary cause. I specifically stated it wasn't and simply stated that some regions in the past have been affected by malpractice law suits and gave one example. I think you are trying to find an argument where one doesn't exist. No need to burn your brain bytes trying to convince me of your point. Did you read my first paragraph? IMO, that is one of the reasons, because "easy" money is by nature inflationary (simple economics). Did you read my last paragraph that stated I believe it's a complicated issue? There is not a singular cause nor are there simple solutions. Sorry- but I believe a lot of folks believe tort reform is a panacea when it's actually a placebo. The Courts is one of the only avenues available to the populace to right injustices done against us. To limit that avenue, in my mind, is not the right thing to do. To discourage frivolous lawsuits the courts should take a look at what's being done with the frivolous lawsuits being filed by patent trolls- lose your case without any validity and you pay the defense costs.
B*D*A Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 Sorry- but I believe a lot of folks believe tort reform is a panacea when it's actually a placebo. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now