|
Post by ptsdthor on Jul 28, 2009 10:25:35 GMT -8
Physician heal thyself. Lets go back to my post that you missed countering entirely. Excluding malpractice reform shows that the Democrats are not serious about lowering costs to the consumer. It is about political patronage to lawyers but feel free to try to choke up some other reason they don't include it? I'll ask again - Why will defensive testing go down when Doctors still have the liabilities they have today? And by the way, you can post to all the statistics you want about a few "bad doctors" and how much money insurance companies make but it will not change the fact that malpractice insurance is needed by ALL doctors regardless of their competence level and it consumes a huge amount of their salary to pay for it - and it's cost is passed onto us in the forms of high insurance premiums and high direct costs. So what was your point again? As I pointed out, California and Texas cap non-income awards and the cost of insurance keeps going up anyway, so the question of insurance company profits is certainly part of the equation. There is nothing to guarantee that a Federal cap on non-income awards would do anything more than raise insurance company profits. Certainly all doctors need malpractice insurance. I never stated that they didn't. I do, however, question whether or not defensive tests are necessary to the extent they're used. A lot of people get MRIs not because the hospital is worried about getting sued but rather is worried about paying off the damn thing. Either way, doctors who have never been sued shouldn't have to pay anywhere near 200 grand a year for malpractice insurance. It's totally obscene. So if you want to cap jury awards, you should also be in favor of capping malpractice insurance premiums or at least in favor of some sort of tiered system that rewards good doctors. =Bob The farce is to claim to be for expanding care, be against waste & fraud, against increasing prices and only go after private insurance companies and mandate a reduction in services once the citizen is on or is eventually kicked out of private insurance and do nothing on tort reform. It is intellectually dishonest to say the existing tort system as it relates to medical malpractice is somehow saving us money and is as efficient as needed. If the Texas law doesn't generate the desired savings then tweak it until it does, just don't say ALL the Lawyers are golden and do nothing! But that is exactly what the Democrats are doing. The Democrats loyalty to the abuse of the law is obvious and self serving and they are not about doing what is best for the average medical patient. They are doing what is best for their political power and their favorite constituencies. You can get rid of bad doctors without civil law suits. Enact a law that provides unbiased complaint review with some teeth against the doctor, not just loads of money for the attorneys. And who says hospitals have to have the final say on a Doctor's competency? Real estate industry uses a form of peer review when they get a complaint against an agent and generally they want to get bad agents out of the business. So why would good Doctors want to protect bad ones?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 28, 2009 10:33:46 GMT -8
You must wonder just how smart and how engaged the Obama Mob is on this issue. Why would Obama let Pelosi and Reid draft the legislation? Why not put together a detailed plan and let Congress work from some comprehensible starting point? I really think that this think is doomed now that folks are getting wind of what is going on. The question is this - why do you believe that Obama's people aren't on The Hill directing this? They have the starting point. The Republicans ain't going to go for it no matter what, so it comes down to negotiating with the Blue Dogs and that's what's going on. =Bob I was under that impression also, but now I hear claims that there has been little or no engagement by the White House. Maybe ObamaCare is a bad label. Now as far as getting "Blue Dogs" to come around is concerned, they better get some significant support from some Republicans or this thing will be hung around their neck come election time. I just came in, so I may have heard wrong but has Obama thrown in the towel on this and are they starting over?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 28, 2009 17:15:14 GMT -8
The question is this - why do you believe that Obama's people aren't on The Hill directing this? They have the starting point. The Republicans ain't going to go for it no matter what, so it comes down to negotiating with the Blue Dogs and that's what's going on. =Bob I was under that impression also, but now I hear claims that there has been little or no engagement by the White House. Who did you hear that from? =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 29, 2009 12:13:24 GMT -8
I was under that impression also, but now I hear claims that there has been little or no engagement by the White House. Who did you hear that from? =Bob CNN I think. Today I hear that a whole new bill is being worked on and rushed to a vote. We had better be very careful and deliberate about this huge chunk of the total economy.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jul 30, 2009 18:34:22 GMT -8
Who did you hear that from? =Bob CNN I think. Today I hear that a whole new bill is being worked on and rushed to a vote. We had better be very careful and deliberate about this huge chunk of the total economy. Well given that your "solution" is mostly made up of "streamlining" and tort reform, I'm not sure what you are bringing to the table. Again Pooh, as far as I know, you have no idea of what health insurance costs for most of us. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 31, 2009 4:48:44 GMT -8
CNN I think. Today I hear that a whole new bill is being worked on and rushed to a vote. We had better be very careful and deliberate about this huge chunk of the total economy. Well given that your "solution" is mostly made up of "streamlining" and tort reform, I'm not sure what you are bringing to the table. Again Pooh, as far as I know, you have no idea of what health insurance costs for most of us. =Bob Are you hinting that I should be glad to pay higher taxes so that I can help pay for your insurance so that we can both have rationed care? There are some who would say that and then there are some who say we all have paid for the care we have in one way or another and that Obama is going to ruin it for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 3, 2009 11:22:22 GMT -8
Here is a link that shows what Obama and his butt buddy Barney Frank really want. starturl.com/ufipz
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Aug 3, 2009 12:42:34 GMT -8
Here is a link that shows what Obama and his butt buddy Barney Frank really want. starturl.com/ufipz "This is a process where the Democrats want to undercut private medical insurance and, with the turmoil that it will cause (like rationing, doctor/nurse flight to exclusively private practice, delays, increased costs, outlawed procedures, etc), they hope that the electorate will eventually demand more and, in the moment of "crisis", the Dems will seize the opening to implement single payer health care (which is where Obama and the Dems wanted to be all along). "The rest of your post is just the usual right-wing tirade about Liberals wanting to control everything and not really worth bothering with.
=Bob"Didn't you know that reminding people where the Democrats want to go with the our healthcare system is just "the usual right-wing tirade"?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 5, 2009 15:11:32 GMT -8
Apparently the American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Health Care Initiatives from the Obama Administration....
The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!' Oncologists fear it's malignant, while Osteopaths see it as holistic. The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter." The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 6, 2009 10:25:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2009 10:04:35 GMT -8
More problems for ObamaKare. www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106259The only thing looking like an unruly mob were the union goons in the fromt row in the first video. There are some real angry people at ObamaKare in most of these links.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2009 10:05:31 GMT -8
Is anyone for ObamaKare? Why?
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2009 11:18:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 9, 2009 11:24:37 GMT -8
A lot of us have suggested tort reform but have sort of forgotten fraud. starturl.com/fraudtortreformThis talks about it. Note where trial lawyers come down on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 9, 2009 17:15:39 GMT -8
As best I recall, the hall had a limit of around 200 people and 1500 showed up. While I agree that it should have been the fire marshal rather than SEIU keeping people out, there were more people than the hall could have possibly accommodated. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 9, 2009 17:17:19 GMT -8
More Town Hall trouble for ObamaKare: Apparently you are now on the "let's call Obama a fascist" bandwagon. =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 10, 2009 10:10:12 GMT -8
As best I recall, the hall had a limit of around 200 people and 1500 showed up. While I agree that it should have been the fire marshal rather than SEIU keeping people out, there were more people than the hall could have possibly accommodated. =Bob Looks like you did not watch it. Sieu and Acorn folks were let in thru a side entrance and did not have to stand in line.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Aug 10, 2009 14:48:35 GMT -8
As best I recall, the hall had a limit of around 200 people and 1500 showed up. While I agree that it should have been the fire marshal rather than SEIU keeping people out, there were more people than the hall could have possibly accommodated. =Bob Looks like you did not watch it. Sieu and Acorn folks were let in thru a side entrance and did not have to stand in line. As opposed to Bush, who screened everyone who ever attended the town hall meetings he held? =Bob
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 12, 2009 18:07:31 GMT -8
Looks like you did not watch it. Sieu and Acorn folks were let in thru a side entrance and did not have to stand in line. As opposed to Bush, who screened everyone who ever attended the town hall meetings he held? =Bob When did Bush enter the ObamaKare debate? Now address the issue.
|
|
|
Post by sportnlyf on Aug 17, 2009 20:50:42 GMT -8
Because of the nonsense from both sides, if i were a member of congress conducting a town hall, i would admit only those folks with ID showing a zip code within my district. Not foolproof, but better than what is happening with shills in the crowd aimed at disrupting reasonable debate and discussion.
|
|