The Republican Healthcare Plan???

To put things in perspective. Just the simple measure of changing paper administrative forms at hospitals for electronic forms would save us more on our national health care costs ( approximately $30 billion) then it would if we eliminated medical malpractice law suits all together.
Click to expand...

So you want everyone's medical records to be stored on a computer, instead of having a hard copy? That's a great idea, but what happens when we have a disaster, and there is no way to retrieve my data, or my data becomes corrupt? What happens when a disk drive fails in a server, and all my records are lost? What happens to my privacy when a hacker is discovered hacking into the medical database?

It's not liberalism that is so bad, it is how liberalism is layered. Like nachos! It's one stupid liberal idea, followed by a series of stupid liberal ideas to deal with the consequences.
 
Mottleydude said:
Dixie it's amazing how you never allow your ignorance to get in the way of your opinions. You just flat out don't know what your talking about and you should spend some time studying the matter before you pop off.

Tort reform is a serious issue and a serious cost but in the grand scheme of things it's just a small percentage (1 maybe 2 percent) of the over all cost of health care costs in this nation. It's a literal drop in the bucket.

At present the US spends more money and more money per capita vs our GDP on health care then any other country. A whoping 15% of GDP. That's about double what most developed, wealthy nations are spending per capita and most of those developed nations achieve a higher level of quality in providing health care services than the US does.

Each year the US spends a staggering 2 trillion dollars in health care costs. Nearly 80% of that cost (1.6 trillion dollars) wil be spent on Hospital care, physician and clinical services, nursing home costs and perscription drugs. 75% of that annual health care cost, 1.5 trillion dollars will be spent on providing health care for those over 65 years of age. That is to say, we are spending 75% of our health care dollars on the oldest 12.5% (1/8th) of our population. Most of that cost being spent on the elderly is all ready being subsidized by the federal government for the elderly via medicare/medicaid. So tax payers are all ready paying a huge sum.

So what your saying is pretty much typical wingnut shit or as I like to say "Simple Solutions for Simple Minds".

It won't work because it doesn't even begin to address the real costs of health care in this nation. It only scratches the surface of the huge costs we pay each year.

To put things in perspective. Just the simple measure of changing paper administrative forms at hospitals for electronic forms would save us more on our national health care costs ( approximately $30 billion) then it would if we eliminated medical malpractice law suits all together.

My suggestion is that you actually try to study the facts of this issue instead of parroting what Rush Limbaugh is telling you.
Click to expand...

Did you know that 25% of healthcare costs are passed on to the consumer because of medicare overruns? That this figure is not clearly articulated in most debates about reform? as to tort reform, this is no small problem. Its run away sue happy attorneys have a more direct impact on consumer costs than even medicare which our government lost control of decades ago.

The solution is many fold, but the answer is not to turn it over to our government who have failed to run any agency well with the exception of the military. The military being a legitimate function of our government likely has something to do with that success.
 
Dixie said:
The health care system indeed needs some reform, but not in the direction liberal democrats want to take it. Instead of addressing the fundamental problems, they want to claim it is simply unaffordable, and should be paid for by government. Rather than looking at why health care and health insurance is so high, it is easier to just tax the rich some more.

You have all seen the commercials... If you suffered following the use of Acme Pharmaceutical Products, please contact our offices, you may be entitled to money damages! These commercials run non-stop day and night in my area, I am sure it's like that all over the country. Now, these commercials are running, because they are effective... they bring in "clients" for the attorneys, who spend all of their time, suing hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical industries. They spend all of their time doing this, because it is very lucrative, they make a great deal on settlements and judgments. All of this money is paid for by the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical industries, through purchase of insurance. Because the claim rates are so high, and the punitive amounts are insane, the subsequent cost to insure against it, is also very high. And if you are unfortunate enough to be zapped with a court ordered award, the cost of insuring you goes through the roof.

Now, whenever any business incurs cost associated with doing that business, it is reflected in the prices charged for the service or product. The more billions we allow ambulance-chasing lawyers to win for their sorry-ass clients, the more the doctor has to charge for a routine examination. This is fundamentally, the main reason health care costs are unaffordable. This is the problem we should be addressing and finding solutions for.
Click to expand...


I see your point.

I mean, why should those greedy ambulance chasers go after the pious pharma industry?

Certainly not because some corporation looked only at their bottom line and rushed to human trials some drug that hasn't been tested enough, and now people prescribed the drug are experiencing serious side effects!

How DARE those ambulance chasing lawyers!
 
Southern Man said:
You are correct as usual Dixie. The whole health care thing would go away if the government instituted tort reform and relaxed regulations on insurers.
Click to expand...


EACTLY! The inaurance companies and Doctors here in Texas told "we the people" that if we instituted tort reform and let them deregulate the insurance industry, our rates would go down almost instantaneously.

Well, we voted for deregulation and guess what??

Rates went UP the first year of "deregulation" by 10-15%!

The INCREASES the next year were nearly identical!

The next year it took a threat from the Texas AG to get the insurance agencies to keep the increases to 5% or lower! Then the insurance industry tried to sue to get the larger increases they wanted!

See where I'm goin with this?
 
Certainly not because some corporation looked only at their bottom line and rushed to human trials some drug that hasn't been tested enough, and now people prescribed the drug are experiencing serious side effects!
Click to expand...

This is undoubtedly a record-size red herring. We long ago established the Food and Drug Administration, to oversee the testing and evaluation of new drugs. We have already mandated a quite extensive criteria for FDA approval of any new drug, even the human testing of drugs.

What you are doing is allowing your emotions to cloud your common sense. This is a problem with liberals. In your warped emotionalized view, drug companies are just greedy rich republican pigs who are concocting products to sell and turn a profit. Everyone who responds to the non-stop 24/7 barrage of commercials on TV, is a poor innocent victim who has a completely legitimate claim for damages. The reality is, most doctors and pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to providing the best medical care, and have the best of intentions regarding their patients/clients/customers. In fact, their very reputation depends on it. The reality is, the cottage industry of suing for every possible thing, is very lucrative for many people, and drives up the cost of health care.

Now, you liberals continue to counter this point, by emphasizing the relatively small percentage of health care cost devoted to paying settlements and judgments. First of all, I have no way of knowing how accurate your data is, I just know non-stop 24/7 commercials in every major market, is very expensive, and these could not be perpetual unless someone was making a lot of money doing it. But the dishonest aspect is, you are focused on the actual money aspect of paid rewards, and that is not what drives up health care costs.

A reward means that someone was sued and had to pay. When is the last time you went to a doctor who had been sued for malpractice? When is the last time you bought a drug from a company sued for negligence? You see, it is not the reward, it is the reputation. Doctors and drug companies can not afford to be sued, from a reputation standpoint, it is a deal killer. So, what they have to do, aside from using sound ethical judgment and making well-founded medical decisions, is carry some very expensive insurance. It is not the reward money ordered by the court, it is the cost of the insurance to the medical professionals, who can't afford to be nailed to the cross.

But now, all of this, show how propaganda works. You've obviously read some refutation of TORT reform, and the counter argument about relative cost of malpractice damage awards, and that is the basis for your beliefs, since it dovetails with your agenda already. It doesn't address the point I made at all, it's a record-size red herring.
 
Dixie said:
This is undoubtedly a record-size red herring. We long ago established the Food and Drug Administration, to oversee the testing and evaluation of new drugs. We have already mandated a quite extensive criteria for FDA approval of any new drug, even the human testing of drugs.

What you are doing is allowing your emotions to cloud your common sense. This is a problem with liberals. In your warped emotionalized view, drug companies are just greedy rich republican pigs who are concocting products to sell and turn a profit. Everyone who responds to the non-stop 24/7 barrage of commercials on TV, is a poor innocent victim who has a completely legitimate claim for damages. The reality is, most doctors and pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to providing the best medical care, and have the best of intentions regarding their patients/clients/customers. In fact, their very reputation depends on it. The reality is, the cottage industry of suing for every possible thing, is very lucrative for many people, and drives up the cost of health care.

Now, you liberals continue to counter this point, by emphasizing the relatively small percentage of health care cost devoted to paying settlements and judgments. First of all, I have no way of knowing how accurate your data is, I just know non-stop 24/7 commercials in every major market, is very expensive, and these could not be perpetual unless someone was making a lot of money doing it. But the dishonest aspect is, you are focused on the actual money aspect of paid rewards, and that is not what drives up health care costs.

A reward means that someone was sued and had to pay. When is the last time you went to a doctor who had been sued for malpractice? When is the last time you bought a drug from a company sued for negligence? You see, it is not the reward, it is the reputation. Doctors and drug companies can not afford to be sued, from a reputation standpoint, it is a deal killer. So, what they have to do, aside from using sound ethical judgment and making well-founded medical decisions, is carry some very expensive insurance. It is not the reward money ordered by the court, it is the cost of the insurance to the medical professionals, who can't afford to be nailed to the cross.

But now, all of this, show how propaganda works. You've obviously read some refutation of TORT reform, and the counter argument about relative cost of malpractice damage awards, and that is the basis for your beliefs, since it dovetails with your agenda already. It doesn't address the point I made at all, it's a record-size red herring.
Click to expand...

When was thee last time you knew whether or not your doctor had been sued? When was the last time a doctor reported another doctor for negligence? Unless the lawsuit is big enough to get the attention of the media no one will know it happened.

When was the last time you knew the name of the manufacturer of the drug when you got a prescription filled?



You want reform that will work and still allow middle class and poor patients the ability to right a wrong? Allow the judge to throw out frivilous lawsuits or force the payment of court costs by the losing side (and include the lawyers in that).
 
WinterBorn said:
When was thee last time you knew whether or not your doctor had been sued? When was the last time a doctor reported another doctor for negligence? Unless the lawsuit is big enough to get the attention of the media no one will know it happened.

When was the last time you knew the name of the manufacturer of the drug when you got a prescription filled?

You want reform that will work and still allow middle class and poor patients the ability to right a wrong? Allow the judge to throw out frivilous lawsuits or force the payment of court costs by the losing side (and include the lawyers in that).
Click to expand...


The point is, word does get out, the media does find out, because court/legal proceedings are public record. Even in the judge throws it out, sometimes it is just the 'implication' which is enough to destroy a career, or a company.

What I want (for ALL American, rich, poor, and middle class) is a system where we understand as mature adults, there are always tangible risks involved with medicine. Unless you can demonstrate where a company deliberately misled the public, or failed to report negative side effects which they were aware of, you shouldn't be able to even bring litigation.

I want America to grow the fuck up, and stop acting like retarded little kids the government has to constantly protect from evil capitalists pigs. Have you read the booklet which comes with every bottle of Tylenol? I bet one of the most expensive aspects of the product, is the high quality printing required to print in such small font. Why is it there? Because the government says it has to be there, to tell idiots about all possible side-effects, and warn against every possible abuse. If any base has been left uncovered, it opens the door for one of the 24/7 vultures to run another commercial!

True story.... This guy in Georgia, was recently awarded $1 million in a lawsuit he filed against the city. Seems he had jumped into the river at a bridge owned by the city, and unfortunately broke his neck. The city argued their defense, two large red and white signs adorn the bridge, which read: "NO JUMPING FROM BRIDGE!" The plaintiffs maintained the city was negligent in informing the public about the risk of breaking your neck, if you jumped. They won! Doesn't have much to do with medicine and pharmaceuticals, but it shows the level of absolute idiocy found in our courts today.

The courts have kind of become like the lottery. What poor unfortunate soul is going to be awarded the jackpot today? Oh, liberals get all red-faced and outraged at the mere mention of the subject. They immediately go to the extreme illustrations of the most downtrodden and unfortunate soul, who just can't catch a break, and is suffering under the boot-heels of the system...

The civil justice system is a bigger joke than the criminal justice system. It's all been liberalized, an then had layers and layers of liberal stupidity heaped on top to fix the consequences of liberalism. It's pretty much turned into a Liberal Society of Imperial Finding, where we learn what rights we have and don't have, based on the profound interpretations of men who wear black robes.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
EACTLY! The inaurance companies and Doctors here in Texas told "we the people" that if we instituted tort reform and let them deregulate the insurance industry, our rates would go down almost instantaneously.

Well, we voted for deregulation and guess what??

Rates went UP the first year of "deregulation" by 10-15%!

The INCREASES the next year were nearly identical!

The next year it took a threat from the Texas AG to get the insurance agencies to keep the increases to 5% or lower! Then the insurance industry tried to sue to get the larger increases they wanted!

See where I'm goin with this?
Click to expand...

Apparently they didn't de-regulate enough. Remember the airlines?
 
Ice Dancer said:
Did you know that 25% of healthcare costs are passed on to the consumer because of medicare overruns? That this figure is not clearly articulated in most debates about reform? as to tort reform, this is no small problem. Its run away sue happy attorneys have a more direct impact on consumer costs than even medicare which our government lost control of decades ago.

The solution is many fold, but the answer is not to turn it over to our government who have failed to run any agency well with the exception of the military. The military being a legitimate function of our government likely has something to do with that success.
Click to expand...

You know your first paragraph was a reasonable comment but the second comment was not only asinine but just plain stupid. On the basis of that rational we should just eliminate Government all together and let those guys on Wall Street who do such a fabulous job run the country. [/sarcasm]

This is an excellent example of why right wing conservatives have become so unpopular. How can you possibly expect someone to govern affectively who implicitly believes that Government is the problem. It's a self full filling prophecy for incompetent and disastrous governence. It's this extreme ideology of the reactionary right that places ideology above sound governance that implicitly disqualifies you from being permitted the responsibilities of governing by the voters. According to you wingnuts only the military can be ran competently by the government but we've just given ample evidence over the last 5 years of just how ineffective and costly the military can be when lead by incompetent political leaders such as Bush co.

You folks make me despair for the future of the Republican Party. You are headed down the same path of extinction as the DoDo Bird, the Passenger Pigeon and the other American conservative party the Whigs.
 
Last edited:
Mottleydude said:
You know your first paragraph was a reasonable comment but the second comment was not only asinine but just plain stupid. On the basis of that rational we should just eliminate Government all together and let those guys on Wall Street who do such a fabulous job run the country. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I NEVER said that government "regulating" is wrong or is not neccesary. The kind, level, rationale, and enforcement however must be done with the utmost of intelligence and planning to avoid such economic fiasco's as what has transpired with the recent housing crisis. What I said was wrong is making our government act the nanny governance. They suck at it.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I NEVER said that government "regulating" is wrong or is not neccesary. The kind, level, rationale, and enforcement however must be done with the utmost of intelligence and planning to avoid such economic fiasco's as what has transpired with the recent housing crisis. What I said was wrong is making our government act the nanny governance. They suck at it.
Click to expand...

Again, you're not getting the big picture here. There is more to proper and effective governance then just "regulating". There are many services that "We The People" have delegated to the Government to provide because other methods are ineffective of just simply don't work. The private sector can not, does not nor was ever intended to solve all of our problems as a society and that is why we have government. To provide for those services we as a society desire or require for which the other sectors cannot provide affectively and I can list you many examples of this. National defense, public infrastructure, public education, emergency response, public health, etc, etc. It's critical that these services be provided competently and cost affectively and doing so does not constitute a nanny state and the inference that this does by reactionary right wingers is just indicative of how unqualified they are to govern.
 
Mottleydude said:
Again, you're not getting the big picture here. There is more to proper and effective governance then just "regulating". There are many services that "We The People" have delegated to the Government to provide because other methods are ineffective of just simply don't work. The private sector can not, does not nor was ever intended to solve all of our problems as a society and that is why we have government. To provide for those services we as a society desire or require for which the other sectors cannot provide affectively and I can list you many examples of this. National defense, public infrastructure, public education, emergency response, public health, etc, etc. It's critical that these services be provided competently and cost affectively and doing so does not constitute a nanny state and the inference that this does by reactionary right wingers is just indicative of how unqualified they are to govern.
Click to expand...

No, I get the big picture. Name one effective large program that our government runs well. Medicare is a disaster. Social security is a disaster. Welfare is a disaster. Come on Mr. condescending lay it out for this simple minded woman.
 
Mottleydude said:
Again, you're not getting the big picture here. There is more to proper and effective governance then just "regulating". There are many services that "We The People" have delegated to the Government to provide because other methods are ineffective of just simply don't work. The private sector can not, does not nor was ever intended to solve all of our problems as a society and that is why we have government. To provide for those services we as a society desire or require for which the other sectors cannot provide affectively and I can list you many examples of this. National defense, public infrastructure, public education, emergency response, public health, etc, etc. It's critical that these services be provided competently and cost affectively and doing so does not constitute a nanny state and the inference that this does by reactionary right wingers is just indicative of how unqualified they are to govern.
Click to expand...

The private sector was always intended to solve our problems, and never government. In fact, the founding fathers most intentionally enumerated very little responsibility to government in this regard. Over the years, We The People have chosen to support politicians who assumed the right to re-interpret the Constitution, and grant themselves the ability to delegate powers the government doesn't have. What's the old quote? ...Democracies can only survive until the public discovers it can vote itself largess out of the treasury.

National defense is one of the very few responsibilities granted to government in the Constitution. However, your "side" has long advocated cuts in funding for that particular duty of the federal government. Aside from the amazing job done by our men and women of the Armed Forces, there is not many examples of great federal government efficiency. I would save my breath throwing out the wonderful examples of public education and health.
 
Dixie said:
The private sector was always intended to solve our problems, and never government. In fact, the founding fathers most intentionally enumerated very little responsibility to government in this regard. Over the years, We The People have chosen to support politicians who assumed the right to re-interpret the Constitution, and grant themselves the ability to delegate powers the government doesn't have. What's the old quote? ...Democracies can only survive until the public discovers it can vote itself largess out of the treasury.

National defense is one of the very few responsibilities granted to government in the Constitution. However, your "side" has long advocated cuts in funding for that particular duty of the federal government. Aside from the amazing job done by our men and women of the Armed Forces, there is not many examples of great federal government efficiency. I would save my breath throwing out the wonderful examples of public education and health.
Click to expand...

I did try to positive rep this post. Stinking rules say I have to spread the wealth...LOL And hear I thought Damo was a Free Market guy...HA!
 
Dixie said:
The private sector was always intended to solve our problems, and never government. In fact, the founding fathers most intentionally enumerated very little responsibility to government in this regard. Over the years, We The People have chosen to support politicians who assumed the right to re-interpret the Constitution, and grant themselves the ability to delegate powers the government doesn't have. What's the old quote? ...Democracies can only survive until the public discovers it can vote itself largess out of the treasury.

National defense is one of the very few responsibilities granted to government in the Constitution. However, your "side" has long advocated cuts in funding for that particular duty of the federal government. Aside from the amazing job done by our men and women of the Armed Forces, there is not many examples of great federal government efficiency. I would save my breath throwing out the wonderful examples of public education and health.
Click to expand...

Oh Dixie that's just utter bull shit. Are you advocating anarchy? As per our constitution any service taht "The People" determine is a legitimate function of government is a legitimate function of government unless it is exrpessly prohibited by the constitution.

I mean you don't even understand the implications of what you are saying.

and again, this just piles on the evidence that those of you on the far right are just not qualified or competent to govern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top