Ustwo

I didn't want to start this idea this way, but I had some time and wanted to set the record straight on this issue. I have moved this post to a new thread from this responce.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...3&postcount=14

Now now to begin.

I’m sorry but if this were true, no one would discuss anything here because everyone seems to have made up their mind already. They don’t discuss it because it is indefensible.

Which insurance costs are you talking about? The cost of treatment or malpractice insurance? Malpractice insurance costs are being DIRECTLY driven by the lawsuits, ask John Edwards about that one. I am in a field where lawsuits are not profitable. As such my malpractice insurance is about 3k a year. An OB/GYN in my state is at about 140,000 a year. In case you were wondering $140,0000 is a lot of money.

Response by a democrat bought off by trial lawyers….

Yes the STATE aka THE PEOPLE, should pay for ridiculous amounts awarded.

Oh but wait it’s the greedy insurance companies?

The ‘greedy’ insurance companies are dropping high risk doctors (note not bad doctors but doctors in high risk fields) because they can not afford to insure them!

I’d like some details on this reform. The government handles lawsuit costs by not allowing you to sue them at all. Its how they work in military hospitals (which suck during peace time) and how they work with all of their agencies. My wife was almost killed by a post office semi-trailer who didn’t see her stopped at a red light, and obviously didn’t see the red light. Since it was a post office vehicle we were unable to sue for anything. Had it been a private company it would have cost them about $30,000 due to her injuries. While the current state of lawsuits is sick, you SHOULD be able to sue a bad doctor, but under a government system this will not happen unless they expect the American people to feed the lawyers like they are trying in Illinois.

This is the worst idea ever. You see unlike you I have worked in such systems for children, as all poor children are covered under my states system. Let me tell you, first hand its lousy, the state barely pays for the costs of the procedure, no profit is made on most and its often at a loss. The only thing keeping the care anywhere near standard (its not good) is that people like me are working there and not getting paid. Now imagine this system across the state. State tells you how much everything will cost, state tells you what you can do, the state determines your salary, and if we did Hilarycare state would tell you where you have to work.

Now lets take a young student, looking for a career. Would YOU pick medicine? Let me tell you its hard, I spent 7 years past college to do what I do, others go even longer. In college I worked for free in a research lab just for the experience and the letter of recommendation. I maintained a top GPA as a doctoral student so I could specialize into the field I wanted. I worked my ass off. I lost almost all of my pre-grad school friends since I didn’t have time for them. I put off starting a family since I couldn’t have afforded it while in school. Now lets go back to 1993, hell lets go back to 1988. A young fresh faced Ustwo is wondering what to do with his soon to be had high school diploma, would this then 17 year old have picked pre-med for a college major knowing that by itself the degree is worth nothing, and it would take him 11 years of schooling if it was a government agency? Would he have worked his ass off knowing he would not have any financial advantage after all that time in school? Are you out of your freaking mind? Hell no. As it was health profession applications were way down in the 80’s due to the good economy. If you can make a lot of money and have a nice life without years of schooling, most people took that route. The GPA of incoming med/dental students fell to all time lows as schools had less people to choose from. As such the quality of the doctors is lower too, not all doctors are created equal, again I’ve seen that first hand.

Now we can socialize a giant segment of our economy, take away personal freedom to choose your health plan like they do in Canada, and screw with the best medical system in the world in terms of research, development, and technology OR we could make some reforms in a legal system which allows lawyers like democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards make anywhere between 50-150 million from suing INNOCENT doctors, and make changes to insurance/Medicare where it pays to shop around for your care and put more competition into the medical market. To fix medicine we need more free market alternatives. Right now you can see high prices in medical care because when insurance pays for everything people don’t care what the cost is. If there were benefits to finding the best deal you would see market forces take over.

By the time I got done with college of course we were in a mild recession and applications were now at all time highs because medicine was a field you could expect to make a good living at. Then I went to visit some hospitals and get a feel for what I would be doing and I had doctors telling me NOT to get into medicine. Between the HMO’s and the cost of malpractice insurance, along with the headaches of constant lawsuits I met a lot of unhappy doctors. I had plans to go into hematology/oncology. I worked in a genetics lab for that reason. I had visions of using modified viruses for doing genetic therapy (an idea I read about, about 5 years later), but I was really taken aback byt the depressed and angry attitude of so many of the doctors.

I decided to go to plan B. I switched to dental school, worked hard there, got into a great orthodontics school and can enjoy my life a lot more.

Now you see in the US its easier to get into dental school then med school. Being a dentist isn’t exactly glamorous, there is no dental version of ER or Scrubs, and if anything dentists are portrayed as being somehow odd on TV. Money wise dentists and physicians are pretty close, I think physicians average higher but there is a huge variance with dentists. Now lets take Canada. In Canada getting into a dental school is harder then med school. While Canada has both a shortage of med and dental spots, dentistry just seems more desirable there. Now I doubt that dentists are any more liked in Canada then the US, but there is one key difference. Canada has their vaunted socialized system of medicine that does NOT cover dentistry. Being a dentist is more desirable in Canada then being a physician because it is not government controlled.

But lets take a quick look at Canada, a nation which can no longer afford anything resembling a military, (and yes I know luckily they don’t need one, the US should send them a bill) and see how things are going.

Oh yes tell me how good Canada’s health care system is. Tell me who invents the new drugs that their government subsidizes (why do you think they are cheaper in Canada??) Tell me who has the best equipment and latest procedures?
If there is one thing Canadians have national pride in besides hockey, its their socialized medicine system. They are told how great it is, US socialists whine about how bad ours is, but the fact is, its not all that great.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

And this JUST in.....

Oh yea socialized medicine, the way to a better tomarrow.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

Hi Ustwo,

I can't reall comment on the specifics of insurance costs and mal practice suits in the US. However, I can defend the notion of socalized medicene as you call it (I am used to hearing it described as a state healthcare system).

You make a reference to a story on the fact that the Canadian system is costing a lot of money, and that some patients are going south to pay for an operation that is unavailable on the state welfare system or that has a long waiting list. One quick minor admonishment though. It would be nice to actually have a link/reference to the story, rather than just a direct quotation!

Now, let's look at the two primary accusations raised.

1) State health care systems cost a lot of money
Well... yes. Of course they do. If the state wants to provide a minimum level of care, pay thousands of doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, hospital staff and maintain hundreds of clinics and hospitals then they have to actually spend the money! Are there some inefficencies? Yes, by all means there are. Could some things be done better? Yes, no one doubts this.

But the same could be said for practically all state related services. Would you, for example, call for the abolishment of the police department and justice systems to be replaced by private renta-cops and Judge Judy's simply because there are some inefficencies in the state system?

2) People go to the US to pay for operations that are unavailable or have long waiting lists.

Well, guess what? So what?! By it's very nature the state healthcare system is aimed at those less well off. It is a COMPLIMENTARY service to private health care. It is not meant to replace private health care, and no one implies it is. If you can pay for treatment to get it quicker, then good for you. You're lucky. Stop complaining about and threatening to remove a service that allows many others to get the same treatment without paying for it or because they can't afford it. They may have to wait in a line, but so what? Either improve the service, reduce the waiting lists or (in some cases) subsidize their direct referral to private practitioners. Do not abandon the whole system because it can't satisfy every single person at a moment's notice.


Mr Mephisto

jconnolly

This is why Canada is constantly fighting over the two-tier system. It would solve many problems that the Liberal Party has created, but not all of them, if Paul Martin continues Chretien's policy of baiting the provinces for money. It was not always like this and Canada's population prefer the "moral" aspects of equality in the health care system. Evolution towards a private healthcare system is not neccessary or even logical.

smooth

Damnit, Mr. Mephisto, now I have to respond, too.

One of Ustwo's major complaints against guaranteed health care was that the government would not allow lawsuits--that people should be able to sue errant doctors. He claims that since the government would prevent such lawsuits unless it was willing to "feed" the doctors, such a program would be untenable.

He uses this as a reason to support tort reform--reform that will limit lawsuits against doctors.

Can someone please explain how this is logically consistent?


One of Ustwo's second criticisms is based on the notion that the public ought not to have its care 'managed' by a centralized bureaucracy. He argues that the government would determine what kinds of treatments patients can have and the amount it will pay for those treatments.

He offers this as a critique of guaranteed health care. However, is anyone willing to dispute that insurance companies do not behave exactly as he described the government would operate? If so, please post it here for me to read and meditate on.



Ustwo did not address the points I raised in regard to the logical coherence of his argument, instead choosing to impung the intelligence level of the entire TFP community ("I knew this debate would be to advanced for TFP") for not seeing the issues as he understands them.

Rather than unravel the high bar I set here in requesting his clarification of the stated inconsistencies by responding to his remarks that bore no bearing on the points I raised, I will submit additional points of inconsistency within this initial post and wait for someone, anyone, even Ustwo, to address them:

Despite Ustwo's inaccurate description of what occurs during civil suits between citizens and government entities, we can entertain his anecdotal evidence heuristically to examine a deeper logical inconsistency within his statement.

Ustwo argues that he and his wife were unable to sue for damages after she was injured by a post-office driver. First of all, unable to sue whom? It certainly stands to reason that the driver and not the government entity is at fault for the damages. Unless he is saying that his lawsuit, aimed at an entity that bore no direct responsibility for the damages, should have been allowed (thus undermining his own argument for tort reform limiting frivelous lawsuits), his use of this anecdote serves no other purpose than emotional appeal. This is known as an appeal to emotion and is a logical fallacy.

The logical inconsistency his anecdote presents to his fundamental position that government sponsored health care would bar people from suing when necessary becomes apparent once we entertain the effects of the tort reform he touts. If reform were to occur as he desires, and had his wife been injured by a person working for a private entity rather than a person working for the government, he and his wife would be unable to sue the private corporation, as well. His reform platform does not open more doors for people to sue entities--in fact, he argues from a position that opportunities for lawsuits must be limited to reduce the cost of doctors' overhead. Thus, his opposition to government sponsored health care based on the notion that it would result in fewer chances to sue when necessary is inconsistent with his support for a reform package that would similarly limit lawsuits.


Ustwo also claims that market forces are not at work in regards to the price of malpractice insurance. His own statements, however, illustrate how inaccurate that statement is. From his initial post we learned that doctors are leaving various states to operate their businesses in other, less expensive states. This dynamic is an excellent example of how free market forces operate--but I personally refrain from claiming that it 'works.' If Ustwo is upset that people are choosing alternative careers or moving to less expensive states to practice, that is one thing. But he didn't leave it at that; rather, he argued that market forces were not working at regulating the open market. The market is free right now and even Ustwo is upset with the ramifications of the free movement of labor. If anything, this point undermines Ustwo's assertion that the market needs to remain liberalized (i.e., private insurance carriers over government provided health care). His claim that increased regulation via tort reform would facilitate the working of a free market results in yet another logically inconsistent stance.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

irateplatypus

i think you're kidding yourself here. socialized healthcare is certainly billed as a complete healthcare solution. if it weren't, then the countries who do have socialized healthcare would have the infrastructure to treat the cases that people travel to the U.S. for. If people honestly thought they'd have to foot the massive bill it will require and then expect long lines and very basic service... there would even less support than what it is getting.

What little support socialized medicine gets is from those who believe it will function as well as their idealized concept of it expects it to. take that away and you'll cut the slight tenuous hold the idea garners here in the U.S.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Ustwo

I knew this debate would be to advanced for TFP. You answer none of the problems in socialized medicine, and play word games. Yes we need to limit some of the insane pay outs in medical lawsuits, and more importantly we need protections for innocent doctors in areas where lawsuits are viewed more as a lottery. If you don't see a value in that then you really have nothing to add.

I can see the problem with today’s legal system (unfair to doctors and insurance companies causing doctors to leave or quit, leaving people without needed care) and I can see the problem with a future all government system (incompetent doctors who are not accountable). Neither of these points are hard to see.

I also STATED that insurance was a problem, and the problem is there is no market forces involved. What does it matter to a patient if once hospital charges 1000 and one charges 10000 for the same procedure if insurance pays for it all? This is why I'm all for health care savings accounts.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

I presume you mean little support in the US, because in the countries that have it (such as Ireland, the UK, Australia, most of continental Europe) it certainly enjoys almost universal support.

If you're basing your argument against a state healthcare system on the erroneous assumption that people who have it don't want it or support it, then you're waaaay off base.

For example in Ireland, the UK and Australia, it is a recurring election theme. Parties that propose increased funds and improvements for the system are more popular than those who do not. In fact, I'm unaware of any party in those countries that propose it be scrapped.

I can't understand why you feel it necessary to criticise the system, or simply make incorrect statements along the lines that "it doesn't work" when that's patently untrue. If you don't support it because of political reasons, then fine. But don't spout simply untruths like "[it has] little support" etc.

I'm confused as to how you can say that. Maybe in America it's not popular, but where do you get your opinion that it's not popular (or working) in the countries that already have it?!

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

On rereading your post irate, I'm now assuming that you are specifically talking about the possibility of a state healthcare system in the US. I'm also inferring that you are not saying it has little support in those countries that already have it.

If that's the case, then fine. I'm surprised the idea doesn't get more traction in the US, but as you say, Americans just don't seem to like the idea. I can't understand why, but there you go.

Mr Mephisto

filtherton

You'd think it would, but those who would have the most to gain from universal healthcare, the poor, are not a very unified political force in the u.s.

irateplatypus

uhh...

i think it was exceedingly clear from my post i was discussing it from the perspective of the United States.

part of the thread discussion is the value/plausibility/feasibility of socialized healthcare in the U.S. when you use future tense words such as "will", it implies that the system being discussed is not yet in place.

so... i don't get those opinions you're asking about. mute point.


Edit: saw your next post just after i posted this one. glad everything is clear.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

irateplatypus

filtherton,

i think that if that many people were genuinely discontent with the medical coverage they're getting it would be a galvanizing issue. the idea just doesn't have much traction in the U.S. It could be an institutional thing (people don't like the general idea of the government managing their healthcare) or a practical thing (they're satisfied enough with their current coverage and don't see a strong need for change.).

Kerry gave a pretty strong hint that he was in favor of some form of socialized healthcare in his convention speech. No one noticed, no one cared.

This is something that effects every single citizen, yet the Senator (and the media god bless'em) want to talk about vietnam... and the President won't stop glossing over Iraq. Beautiful.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

There is a huge number of people in this country whose only medical plan is to not get sick. These people wait until the situation is critical and then go to the emergency room. Medical coverage isn't cheap, especially if you don't have an employer to help you out with it. Pair that with cuts in social programs that provide affordable healthcare and you have a lot of people with no healthcare at all.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf
These are all for 2003

45 million uninsured.

76.8 million were covered by government programs including medicaid.

1.3 million people lost coverage through their employer

11.4 percent of all american children are not covered at all. That's 8.4 million children.

19.2 percent of children in poverty are uninsured.

Nearly a fourth of people who make less than $25000 a year are uninsured.

I find it difficult to believe that these people wouldn't support universal healthcare over no healthcare at all. Especially in light of the idea of universal healthcare plus a third party system for those who didn't want to use the government's program. Kind've like public vs. private schools. Imagine what the country would be like if the poor were to organize like the AARP. How much power would they have? That power is there for the taking and if there is any more of a galvanizing idea i have not heard it. Yet they don't organize. I think if they could unite they would, and they have on some things, but not for a long time.

Besides, kerry mentioned a lot of things in his speeches. Right now all we hear about kerry is his flip-flopping or his vietnam service. The gop seems to be controlling the discussion and nationalized healthcare doesn't seem like a big issue to them. I think kerry would love to talk about healthcare and if bush agrees to debate, which any respectable candidate should be able to do, then i have no doubt that we will hear more about the issue.

fuzyfuzer

you know its great if you think that socialized medicine is the way to go, others disagree and i happen to be one of them. i'll give you a little fact that unfortunatly i can not back up with articles or anything you'll just have to take my word for it. there are no longer any independent OBGYN's in St. Louis county. except for memebers of the BJC system. do we really want our doctors ncorporated. can anyone else see a day when a surgeion is not allowed to opperate because there is only a 20% survival rate. i don't know about any of you but that seem out of the question to me. this is the direction it is heading unfortunatly.

i know of a Neurosurgeon who was the major Neuro in a hospital called St. Anthonies in south county. he was willing to take more high risk cases and has a higher mortality than others. right now there is only one way for him to practice he has to be self insured. want to know why, because he was willing to help and it didn't allways turn out posative. this makes him an easy victory in court. the lawyer brings up this rate of death out context and persuedes the jury that he is a bad doctor without explaining things. (now raise your hand if you think that is right)

i really don't think that it is at all right that lawers and every day people are deciding whether the doctor made the right choice. they are uneducated to the complexities of the profesion and then through our legal system they get decide if a person who has been learning for his entire adult life made the right choice.

my dad is a member of the medical exec team at said hospital and they are trying to cope with the fact that they have had 17 of their doctors leave in the past 6 months these are also only the doctors employed by the hospital, that doesn' include those in private practice. this board has been able to meet with the current Governer and both candidates on this issue and both of the demecrats were unwilling to accept the problem. all they did was say that, that was not that big of a deal and that they will be able to cope. McCaskill however has changed her views slightly and that may show some posative on the issue. obviously at least from my view things need to change and socialized medicine is not the right direction.

for a little review on the tort reform issue in Missouri please refer to this article

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...ctice+reform++

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

filtherton

I think that is more an argument for tort reform than against universal healthcare.

fuzyfuzer

please correct me if i'm wrong but this thread is more about tort reform than socialized medicine i only mentioned it because it was a subtopic in the thread apparently

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

pan6467

Personally, I think one reason lawsuit awards are so high is because healthcare is high.

Which came first the malpractice awards or the out of control pricing? IMO they are relatively the same.

As for lawsuits in general, if the surgeon does fuck up he should pay big bucks. If a surgeon goes in to remove an appendix and he ends up nicking a kidney and that kidney fuction is lost, then he should be sued for as much as possible. He quite possibly destroyed someone's life. Yes, a person has 2 kidneys, yes a person can live on one, BUT he added stress to the one that is surviving, and in 20 years it could go because of that stress ending a person's life much sooner than it should have been.

I truly believe there are far fewer malpractice lawsuits than we are led to believe and I believe insurance companies reem everyone. They collect on the malpractice lawsuits and they collect on the Dr.s paying the malpractice premiums. Insurance companies are in a win-win situation.

In fact from what I have heard most insurance companies limit a Dr.s liability if he is in their "system".

Insurance companies set the price of what they will pay a Dr. and so the Drs then have to charge non-insured outrageously high full prices.

You want to change the system change the insurance companies first not the lawsuits (although a limit on the award has many pros and cons).

Personally, I believe you regulate the insurance and the prices make them affordable (and if necessary state assisted), and the Dr.s accountable by having them go through a refresher course and evaluated every 4 years, or you socialize medicine and have the state take it over completely by taking out the insurance companies, restricting prices of meds, while helping fund R&D, and set everything on a sliding scale.

See, I don't believe the right's argument that if you give something free to people they will abuse it and it gives no incentive. That's BS and they contradict themselves because in the next breath they say it is in man's nature to better himself and become self reliant.

Yes, there are some that will take adavntage of the system, BUT you also free up billions upon billions of dollars from the people that can be invested in growing industries and jobs that pay well. Thus improving the economy and taxbase, so that eventually medical care provided by the state pays for itself in the extra taxbase.

In the end all this boils down to is the greedy insurance companies wanting no regulation and liability on the Dr.s (to some this is what the GOP represents) and the lawyers wanting no reform and the doctors and insurance companies being held responsible (to some this is what the Dems represent).

Two sides disagreeing and it's all about money not the people. Make medicine responsive to the people socialize it or regulate it and you end all this bickering.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Ustwo

Now pan if you had me off ignore you would know that in some places doctors can not GET insurance no matter what because the awards were so high. Insurance companies are not making money but giving up. They can not charge doctors enough to make it worth the risk.

This of course was not in my argument, which you didn't read, and the problem isn't that 'everyone will use it' the problem is that 'it will be not as good'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

how can this be? my math may be off... but if 8.4 million children compose 11.4 percent of all american children, then wouldn't that mean that there are roughtly 77.3 million children in the U.S.? Given that there are close to 294 million U.S. citizens in total, this would seem to indicate that 1 in 4 citizens are considered children.

either my math or this stat is way off.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

OpieCunningham

Ustwo -

We could have a healthcare system that is simply amazing in its' abilities. We might define it as magic because it is so incredibly good in comparison to healthcare in any other country. But it would also be so prohibitively expensive, that only the richest of the rich would have access to it. You could describe such healthcare as "The Best".

But almost no one would benefit - so it is, in reality, the worst.

Tort reform is the worst thing we could establish. Tort reform of any kind negates the last means of defense for the people against business. As insurance companies and big business use lobbyists to control the government more and more, creating an environment where gov't does not protect the people from business, tort is the last line of defense.

But more importantly - tort reform doesn't work. It has been tried in 30 states, none of them saw a decrease or stabilization in insurance rates. California tried it in 1975, but premiums continued to rise. Only once consumer activists proposed Prop 103 in 1988, for aggressive insurance reform, did premiums level off.

The issue with healthcare is focused around insurance companies not facing enough regulation (see my point above about lobbyists exerting massive influence over gov't regulations). It is not about "too many" lawsuits.

onetime2

This is really a complicated issue. I've written about three different posts for this subject but none have effectively captured my thoughts/feelings. These have included supporting notations from the AMA, Phrma, newspapers, government studies, etc but were just too long and convoluted to post with any expectation of discussion.

Suffice to say that the current system is flawed. There are likely too many doctors, insurance companies are capitalizing on the perception of increasing malpractice claims, the presence of too many lawyers encourages them to play the system in hopes of nice pay days, pharmaceutical companies are inefficient and the US market is looked upon all of them as the last great land of opportunity for profits. There is a perception that too many people are without insurance when, in fact, treatment is available for those without insurance. Finally, healthcare controlled entirely by the Government would be a disaster.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

filtherton

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet...SF1_U&-_sse=on
Here are the age stats from the american factfinder census website:

Under 5 years 19,175,798
5 to 9 years 20,549,505
10 to 14 years 20,528,072
15 to 19 years 20,219,890

with a grand total of: 80,473,265 million americans who are 19 or under. Out of 281,421,906 americans total that's about 28% of the population. Maybe the figures are different because they use population estimates in between actual census years.

I don't know how many 19 year old american there are, but this seems to indicate that your math and the stat are accurate, give or take. If anything, acording to these figures, 11.4% should be more than 8.4 million.

irateplatypus

hmm... thanks for doing some additional reasearch to clear that up for me. i suppose that i was surprised by 19 and younger being the definition of children. i think minor would be a more appropriate term... children brings to mind someone much younger than 19. glad to have that cleared up.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

The_wall

Hey I'm 19 and uninsured!

I admit I know nothing when it comes to health care (I mean wtf is tort reform) however I see the hmo companies as turning peoples health into a buisness. Thats my contribution to the thread

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

filtherton

Well, in the uninsured stats i quoted, 18 and under was the standard for determining child status. The second set data i found divided it up differently so there is a little discrepancy in the numbers.

Superbelt

I don't think this is to advanced for us, so I will chime in with my two bits.

First, I find it funny how ustwo etc. are both in favor of and against tight regulations on the same issue.
Against nationalizing health care, but for restricting the free markets right to use.

The problem I see with large cashouts for malpractice and me seeing the state of health care in dire need of an overhaul are the same issue.

I see two main points.

Doctors who are negligent are allowed to continue to "practice their love" on americans. They drive up other doctors premiums.

And that has a lot to do with the state of the health care "free market" Hospitals work for profit, but there isn't really a free market there. Hospitals are built for coverage, not competition. So if there is a badly managed hospital in your area you are just screwed. This is anecdotal (I can find you sources if you want) But hospitals are poorly run. They are understaffed, in both nursing and doctors. This understaffing results in sloppy work, hurried and jaded employees. I believe this directly results in the gruesome results that end up being multi-million dollar settlements like improper birthings that result in cerebral palsy (John Edwards specialty) to wrong legs getting amputated and sponges, syringes, knives being sewn into patients.

Nationalized health care will be run at no profit, and will be staffed properly. John Kerry's plan is to have the same health care plan that the president and legislature enjoyes applied to all americans. I think that's a good thing. That's the solution the problem of tort reform. Big settlements will still come and go, but overall the quality will rise.

Ustwo

Oh Canada.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132785,00.html

40% Give it a C? They pay HOW much in taxes for this? Oh kids, why do you want to fuck up the US health care system so badly.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jconnolly

Which is a relatively new development in Canada, Ustwo. In 1998/9, it tended towards 80% satisfactory. Paul Martin has promised the 41 billion needed to take certain bills (pharmacare particularly) off the shoulders of the provinces, which will allow them to reduce waiting times and improve hospitals overall.

Ustwo

Since it is illegal to get private health care in Canada and many Canadians travel to the US for health care to avoid waits, pain, dying, that sort of thing, how much worse do you think it would get in Canada if the US also had the same kind of system? There would no longer be the saftey valve and critical need patietns would no longer be able to seek care elsewhere but instead would be forced to wait the months it takes to get urgent care. About the only winner in this is Mexico since they would see 1000's of private health care clinics open for US citizens fleeing our program just like Canadians flee theirs.

Canada is running out of money for health care, and it is only going to get worse with an aging population who will not be working to pay those taxes, and getting sicker. Soon it will be the ONLY issue in Canadian politics.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

jconnolly

(Snipped the first part because I'm only correcting you on Canada's healthcare system and didn't mention America.)

Paul Martin signs deal for increased health care spending

Government says they have enough money to cover said promises

pan6467

It's funny how the people here who argue how health care will run up other countries deficits yet support Bush who is running higher deficits than any president before him and any other country out there.

The ONLY reason they argue about other countries health care is because they don't have any true reasoning the US should not offer it, except greed and greed doesn't win elections...... but fear does.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

filtherton

I don't know how you think the u.s. system isn't fucked up. Ours is just fucked up in a different way. Anyways, the problem with canada's system is in how it is being implemented, not anything fundamental. For a similar thing closer to home, just look around you the next time you go to the dmv. In my state the dmv used to get much less funding than they needed to meet the demand of their services. But at some point, the legislature upped their funding and 6 hour wait times went down to twenty minutes.

Anyways, you have no solid argument against a universal healthcare system that allows private healthcare services for those who can afford it.

rukkyg

I'm sure ustwo you would agree that American is a better country than Canada (most Americans would). So, I find it odd that you'd attribute Canada's seemingly failing medical system on the system, not on the intrinisic weakness of being Canadian (read, not American).

Said another way, I think that the strengths of America's current health care system is a result of it being American, not being private. I think that a public health care system would be just as good as the current private system is, only available to more people.

That said, I'm torn on tort reform, because I'm appalled by the actions of corporations and the way their money controls our government, but am also appalled by the corporations and private businesses who hire lawyers to sue doctors for so much money.

I fear that we're headed towards either 1984's The Party or Resident Evil's the Umbrella Corporation. Both seem equally horrible to me, but at least if heading towards the former, we have more ability to stop it from happening as long as we still have the constitution and a semi-uncorrupt court system.

balderdash111

I have no interest in engaging in the rest of this debate. You obviously have strong opinions on this matter and I doubt that anything I told you could change your mind.

However, just as an FYI, this isn't true. You can sue the post office if their truck hits you. I don't know what lawyer told you differently, but you can. To the extent this was the basis for any of your opinions, please rejigger them accordingly.

I don't know about military hospitals. I imagine it has less to do with sovereign immunity than it does with the peculiar status of being in the military when you are treated by other military personnel.

Finally, in contrast to what someone else said, I doubt you can sue an individual postal worker, unless you claim some sort of civil rights violation....and even then I think it would need to be the state/feds that sued them. Same as with suing police officers.

Have fun with the flamewar!

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Orpheus

Admittedly not having read through the entire thread, has anyone addressed the sensitivity to risk that causes insurance companies to raise premeiums on certain types of medical practice? Since insurers are free to deny coverage to high risk patients, how does that square with Ustwo's concern that we are not taking advantadge of market forces? It seems to me that if insurance companies were forced to diversify risk instead of exploiting it, that would enable these OB-GYNs and Neurosurgeons to have other, less vulnerable practitioners subsidize their insurance premeiums, much like the young subsidize the old.

KMA-628

This is kind of a bogus number to use in this argument. Not that the number is wrong, but look at the breakdown and you will see what I mean.

i.e. it includes non-citizens and it also includes a lot of people in fairly high tax brackets.

The "real" number is less. Still a concern, but saying "45 million uninsured" without including the breakdown is misleading.

KMA-628

As long as my tax burden doesn't go up, I would probably support this.

Cap gov't spending, cut BS programs and there should be plenty of money for this type of plan.

As long as I have an option of not taking a state-sponsered healthcare plan. I am not a big fan of the theory that the gov't can do it better school-of-thought. As long as it doesn't affect my pocketbook, I am o.k. with this as an option.