OH Bullshit MM. You just think it drives costs to stupid levels. But just wait until you hear from my attorney.

 

stumbler

Code:

OH Bullshit MM. You just think it drives costs to stupid levels. But just wait until you hear from my attorney.

Its assholes like you and your attorney that drive the cost of doing business to the point where everything is made offshore. Roadtoad

 

Let us look at the big picture of this universal health care that is being voted on. A (self employed) person spends on average $400 a month on their health insurance, that comes out to $4800 annually. The plan says that if you don't take insurance, the government will fine you approx $3200 a year, right? What makes the person say to hell with paying for private insurance, get fined and when he/she gets sick the insurance companies HAVE to provide insurance to cover this person. Since the bill includes a "no pre-existing injury/illness clause" the insurance companies cannot turn him/her down for health insurance. If he/she stays healthy for 30 years then why get insurance?

 

No its assholes like you that need your ass sued off and keep driving up the cost of attorneys.

And your problem with this would be what?

 

News From the Front

Man, you know you're in trouble when the Chinese worry that you're overspending on socialist reforms:

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/16/china-questions-costs-of-us-healthcare-reform/

 

Why do you think I have a problem with it? It wasn't intended to have a response, it was just my idea. Do you have a problem? Go see a shrink!!!

 

More relaxing, tranquility inducing weed, this one needs.

 

"Communist" China has segued from being a totalitarian socialist country to being a totalitarian capitalist country. The word for that is "fascist." There is very little of a safety net over there, vast poverty, and quite a few millionaires. Communist China has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world. Nationalist China has one of the most equal distributions. Considering the political history of both countries, and those who supported Nationalist China, or idealized - without knowing much about - China under Mao, that is ironic.

The economic success of Communist China demonstrates that capitalism works fine without democracy, and without what one in the United States would call "freedom."

The United States is losing it. Our infrastructure is rotting. Our national debt keeps going up. The standard of living of most Americans has been in decline throughout this decade. We have the most expensive military in the world, but we cannot defeat poorly armed, poorly lead, and disunited guerrillas in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I remember in 1980 telling a co-worker, "This generation belongs militarily to the Soviet Union, and economically to Japan. The next generation belongs militarily and economically to Communist China." I was wrong about the Soviet Union and Japan. I may be still be right about Communist China.

 

However,

However, whenever the cost of health care reform comes up, I like to point out that countries with universal health care spend less on health care than we do, and get better results.

 

would like to see where the UK is on that list

but if that is per head spending the USA should have the best universal health care in the world

if thats true you have some Major problems in the USA with your health system

 

Two seniors sitting on a park bench:

"The government claims they've solved the prescription drug problem.

If your life expectancy takes you to the next presidential election...

They will pay for your prescription drugs....otherwise..."

 

It is far better to spend some our tax money improving the situation of American citizens rather than burning dollars in Iraq to help improve their oil producing situation.

It always amazes me when people that claim to be conservative have no complaint with the amount of money our country has been spending on wars in the past 9 years. Never mind about the number of dead people that have been killed in war or died as a result of the lack of health care.

It is truly an evil line of thought from those that want to protest the establishment of better health care to our citizens most in need while not protesting the Oil Wars.

That's not including their lack of disrespect for the environment in which we live in. That's not conservative. That's foolish.

 

We also spend the most on education and our results rank very poorly in the world. Since our schools are predominantly public what does this say for our ability to cut costs by going public?

Our expenditures on health care are atrocious, why are they so high? The answer to that question can be found in the thread ranking America's health ratings by state. Obesity, smoking, risky life style choices, sedentary population (children in particular), etc. all contribute to our overall health. We are unhealthy because we are spoiled, lazy, ignorant fools, universal health care will do nothing to change that. However, our failed educational system could have done it. But our liberal friends don't want to fix it.

Your post reflects a typical liberal response, we aren't spending enough. We are spending our money on the things other than health care.

Yet the chart shows we are spending far more than most other countries with poorer results. Your answer is to spend even more. Why can you not see the fallacy in this thinking?

 

The theory behind punitive damages is that they are necessary as a deterrence -- to prevent the behavior in question from happening again. If all you have to do is compensate people for actual damages, you'll do a simple actuarial calculation, figure that if you build cars with exploding gas tanks, only SOME of them will actually explode, and SOME of the victims won't sue you, that you'll win SOME cases, and you'll conclude that it's worth it to you not to recall cars that have gas tanks that explode.

 

Baloney, tenguy. We just don't want to destroy it in the process. But universal health care COULD do a lot to re-educate Americans regarding lifestyle choices and preventive health. As it is now, the health care system is reactive -- we use it when we get sick. By then it's often too late.

We don't need to spend more. Universal health care would be a bargain in terms of total per-capita expenditures (compared to the status quo), and we'd get better results.

But tell me, tenguy...how would YOU solve the problem of poor lifestyle choices, obesity, etc., within the context of a completely privatized health care system?

 

You are absolutely correct in your assessment of risk evaluation.

To punish a company or an individual for negligence is a way to make them reevaluate their products or services. However, part of the risk management scheme is to hedge your bets, engage someone else to pay the monetary penalty, obtain insurance or raise your reserves for anticipated penalties.

This results in the ultimate bearer of the punitive damage awards to be someone other than the offending party. The policy holders of the insurance company, the investors in the offending company or the consumer buying the product or service, foots the bill.

Why not make the punitive part of the suit a direct fine against the company, not able to be covered by insurance. In the case of medical malpractice, award the victim a reasonable and proper amount to cover their actual losses, but suspend the physician from being able to practice for a period of time. Other penalties could be mandatory remedial training, performance of public service, working with victims of other malpractice cases, something other than a monetary payout that will be borne by others.

 

I'm noy saying that we need to spend more. I'm saying that we need to spend less on killing people and helping other countries. This will allow us to spend more helping our own citizens.

That's not liberal or conservative. That's just a better alternative way of spending.

 

Your not saying we need to spend more money?

Gee, you coulda fooled me.

Perhaps you meant that it would mean that our national debt would be less, our taxes less or our human rights position more just.

 

That all seems reasonable enough to me.

 

Great, IMO it would ultimately improve quality without inflating costs.