RufRTs Obama Windup

[RufRT]

RufRT, I presume you agree that the state has an obligation to ensure certain things are provided for all their citizens; things like security, water, food, education etc. Do you not consider good quality health care to be one of these things the state is obliged to provide, and if not, why not?

From my perspective, admittedly someone who has lived their life in a country with healthcare available for all and free at the point of service, it seems very cruel to have medical treatment based on the wealth of the individual. How is that ethical?

Quality affordable healthcare for all is a common goal that all politicians agree upon. That is not in question. The question is how do we get there and in what form is the healthcare.

I believe in a healthcare system that has affordable insurance for all, devoid of pre-existing condition exclusions, with no special anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and a complete honest effort towards tort reform.

I work in healthcare. I know the amount of defensive testing that goes on to CYA (cover your arse) against lawsuits. If this excessive testing was curtailed by sensible tort reform, it would literally save tens of billions of dollars yearly. But unfortunately, the trial lawyer lobby has democrats by the testicles and they won't budge. So, the CT Scan for every abdominal pain that comes through the ED will continue...when we once relied on a good physical exam to make the diagnosis.

It is possible to sensibly reduce individual healthcare insurance costs via subsidies and grants to the most in need. People with exisiting insurance should keep it. Government should have no place in healthcare delivery or governance. Name one government program that is run successfully or in the black ? right, none. The amount of money you could save via Tort Reform, elimination of crap fast foods, banning of smoking, and reduction of healthcare duplicity and waste would be staggering.

The democrats went about this in a unilateral ideological fashion. Instead of looking at the root causes of the problem and attacking it precisely, they decided that government was the answer. When public outcry nixed this, they decided that anything was better than nothing and started their handouts to special interests to garner support for the sole purpose of passing healthcare for political gain only.

I'm open for a true bipartisan approach to healthcare reform...both sides meeting in the middle. The House Republicans have had a plan for consideration since the outset...the arrogance of the dems denied it even a cursory look. Well, I guess they will take a peek now.

 

[RufRT]

Its the standard trickle down mentality of the Republican crowd. They don't want substantive health care reform because their deregulated free-market political platform is in bed with the medical and insurance industries. The day to day needs of every day people aren't significant to them.

you really are way too bitter....you roll out the anti-republican cliches ad nauseum

 

[brad-dyrak]

Good post, and I'd agree with most of that, but not that the republicans have actually made a real effort at fielding a plan. Back when Hilary gave it a shot, as part of shooting it down saying they had their own ideas they would follow up on. Needless to say nothing came of it. What sort of effort was fielded for Bush's 8 years? Why do we only hear of these plans when the dems push the issue to the fore, and then as the wounded party being so arrogantly ignored. I found the scenes of the republicans waving their plan on TV maddening.

Definitelyl agree on the tort reform though.

 

[Flying Fox]

Quality affordable healthcare for all is a common goal that all politicians agree upon. That is not in question. The question is how do we get there and in what form is the healthcare.

I believe in a healthcare system that has affordable insurance for all, devoid of pre-existing condition exclusions, with no special anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and a complete honest effort towards tort reform.

I work in healthcare. I know the amount of defensive testing that goes on to CYA (cover your arse) against lawsuits. If this excessive testing was curtailed by sensible tort reform, it would literally save tens of billions of dollars yearly. But unfortunately, the trial lawyer lobby has democrats by the testicles and they won't budge. So, the CT Scan for every abdominal pain that comes through the ED will continue...when we once relied on a good physical exam to make the diagnosis.

It is possible to sensibly reduce individual healthcare insurance costs via subsidies and grants to the most in need. People with exisiting insurance should keep it. Government should have no place in healthcare delivery or governance. Name one government program that is run successfully or in the black ? right, none. The amount of money you could save via Tort Reform, elimination of crap fast foods, banning of smoking, and reduction of healthcare duplicity and waste would be staggering.

The democrats went about this in a unilateral ideological fashion. Instead of looking at the root causes of the problem and attacking it precisely, they decided that government was the answer. When public outcry nixed this, they decided that anything was better than nothing and started their handouts to special interests to garner support for the sole purpose of passing healthcare for political gain only.

I'm open for a true bipartisan approach to healthcare reform...both sides meeting in the middle. The House Republicans have had a plan for consideration since the outset...the arrogance of the dems denied it even a cursory look. Well, I guess they will take a peek now.

I agree (think I might have died a little inside then) on the point re ideology. You see it in all levels of govt around the world where they decide its their way or bust. That annoys me more than anything when they act like children and don't want to concede ground where a calculated, sensible approach that takes into account concerns from both sides might be the better option. That ties into what I said earlier about wanting to see politics shun some of the childish aspects of their office and just work for whats best for the people and leave them (the people) in a better state than when they took office in the beginning.

 

[peterstorey]

He he, the power of the caf, even the WUMs end up talking sense in the end.

 

[Raoul]

Quality affordable healthcare for all is a common goal that all politicians agree upon. That is not in question. The question is how do we get there and in what form is the healthcare.

I believe in a healthcare system that has affordable insurance for all, devoid of pre-existing condition exclusions, with no special anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and a complete honest effort towards tort reform.

I work in healthcare. I know the amount of defensive testing that goes on to CYA (cover your arse) against lawsuits. If this excessive testing was curtailed by sensible tort reform, it would literally save tens of billions of dollars yearly. But unfortunately, the trial lawyer lobby has democrats by the testicles and they won't budge. So, the CT Scan for every abdominal pain that comes through the ED will continue...when we once relied on a good physical exam to make the diagnosis.

It is possible to sensibly reduce individual healthcare insurance costs via subsidies and grants to the most in need. People with exisiting insurance should keep it. Government should have no place in healthcare delivery or governance. Name one government program that is run successfully or in the black ? right, none. The amount of money you could save via Tort Reform, elimination of crap fast foods, banning of smoking, and reduction of healthcare duplicity and waste would be staggering.

The democrats went about this in a unilateral ideological fashion. Instead of looking at the root causes of the problem and attacking it precisely, they decided that government was the answer. When public outcry nixed this, they decided that anything was better than nothing and started their handouts to special interests to garner support for the sole purpose of passing healthcare for political gain only.

I'm open for a true bipartisan approach to healthcare reform...both sides meeting in the middle. The House Republicans have had a plan for consideration since the outset...the arrogance of the dems denied it even a cursory look. Well, I guess they will take a peek now.

Well I'll be damned. You are capable of making a normal post after all.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Quality affordable healthcare for all is a common goal that all politicians agree upon. That is not in question. The question is how do we get there and in what form is the healthcare.

I believe in a healthcare system that has affordable insurance for all, devoid of pre-existing condition exclusions, with no special anti-trust exemption for insurance companies and a complete honest effort towards tort reform.

I work in healthcare. I know the amount of defensive testing that goes on to CYA (cover your arse) against lawsuits. If this excessive testing was curtailed by sensible tort reform, it would literally save tens of billions of dollars yearly. But unfortunately, the trial lawyer lobby has democrats by the testicles and they won't budge. So, the CT Scan for every abdominal pain that comes through the ED will continue...when we once relied on a good physical exam to make the diagnosis.

It is possible to sensibly reduce individual healthcare insurance costs via subsidies and grants to the most in need. People with exisiting insurance should keep it. Government should have no place in healthcare delivery or governance. Name one government program that is run successfully or in the black ? right, none. The amount of money you could save via Tort Reform, elimination of crap fast foods, banning of smoking, and reduction of healthcare duplicity and waste would be staggering.

The democrats went about this in a unilateral ideological fashion. Instead of looking at the root causes of the problem and attacking it precisely, they decided that government was the answer. When public outcry nixed this, they decided that anything was better than nothing and started their handouts to special interests to garner support for the sole purpose of passing healthcare for political gain only.

I'm open for a true bipartisan approach to healthcare reform...both sides meeting in the middle. The House Republicans have had a plan for consideration since the outset...the arrogance of the dems denied it even a cursory look. Well, I guess they will take a peek now.

Interesting post, although I disagree with some of the fundamentals.

Out of interest, are you also in favour of privatising emergency services (police/fire) and education seeing as you are against government provided services?

 

[Team Brian GB]

I disagree on the point of government delivered health care, British life expectancy is just slightly longer than American and delivered at 8% instead of 16% of GDP with 100% coverage on a totally equal basis. Obviously no one could possibly suggest the US would, should or could go the same way in a free-at-the-point-of-use manner but it needs to get to universal coverage somehow, but the Obama way of giving nearly 50 million people without insurance coverage by forcing them by law to take coverage despite some levels of federal help is absolutely absurd.

There are a lot of excellent measures in this bill which should be welcomed but the democrats have taken a very route one approach to passing it (if they didn't have a supermajority in the Senate to begin with then the irony is a much better and more popular bill would have been designed) they really should have included tort reform into the process and found another way of insuring that all people got coverage.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

The main reform that is needed but never mentioned is to ban pharmaceutical companies advertising directly to patients.

 

[RufRT]

Well I'll be damned. You are capable of making a normal post after all.

Hmmm, now I'm worried....You're idea of "normal" scares me shitless

 

[RufRT]

He he, the power of the caf, even the WUMs end up talking sense in the end.

Actually, considering last nights results, it seems I was talking sense from the outset...

toodaloo old boy

 

[RufRT]

I agree (think I might have died a little inside then) on the point re ideology. You see it in all levels of govt around the world where they decide its their way or bust. That annoys me more than anything when they act like children and don't want to concede ground where a calculated, sensible approach that takes into account concerns from both sides might be the better option. That ties into what I said earlier about wanting to see politics shun some of the childish aspects of their office and just work for whats best for the people and leave them (the people) in a better state than when they took office in the beginning.

Well, they were force fed pragmatism last night by the shovel full. Hence the contrite, "pared back" stance being taken today.

Contrary to the oft self congratulatory american bashing that goes on in here, yanks are pretty knowledgeable about what they want in government. The message sent last night was less spending, less backroom deal making, and stuff this current guise of healthcare reform.

Americans are used to their freedoms, and don't take kindly to overly leftward lurches....thats a pitfall in even the bluest of Blue states as demos found out.

 

[RufRT]

I disagree on the point of government delivered health care, British life expectancy is just slightly longer than American and delivered at 8% instead of 16% of GDP with 100% coverage on a totally equal basis. Obviously no one could possibly suggest the US would, should or could go the same way in a free-at-the-point-of-use manner but it needs to get to universal coverage somehow, but the Obama way of giving nearly 50 million people without insurance coverage by forcing them by law to take coverage despite some levels of federal help is absolutely absurd.

There are a lot of excellent measures in this bill which should be welcomed but the democrats have taken a very route one approach to passing it (if they didn't have a supermajority in the Senate to begin with then the irony is a much better and more popular bill would have been designed) they really should have included tort reform into the process and found another way of insuring that all people got coverage.

Brian, how prevalent are medical malpractice lawsuits in Britain, and whats the typical payout ?

 

[Team Brian GB]

Brian, how prevalent are medical malpractice lawsuits in Britain, and whats the typical payout ?

Erm, they certainly happen and we do have a litigation culture but in the UK there generally has to be quite significant misconduct, usually on the operation table for a lawsuit to arise, let alone be successful. I think given the nature of the British system that it is free at the point of use, and that there aren't insurance agents hovering over every decision and outcome made for better or worse has a lot to do with it. I imagine there is a lot more lawsuits per head of treatments in the small private sector as opposed to the NHS for such reasons.

Payouts in the United Kingdom in all types of lawsuits are far, far smaller than in the United States, so vary rarely will you hear of a healthcare lawsuit but when you do it will be in the handfuls of thousands perhaps in the low tens of thousands. It is so rare I don't know numbers but I will find them. As I say we are no where hear as close to suing and for the numbers in the US, it is employment tribunals where you hear the biggest figures cited.

 

[RufRT]

Excellent, excellent article.

Read this in its entirety.

No censorship on this one Raoul



A year ago, the 30-year conservative ascendancy in American politics seemed to have run its course. Barack Obama entered the White House with a larger share of the popular vote than any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson’s liberal landslide in 1964. With huge majorities in both houses, including a supposedly “filibuster-proof” 60 votes in the Senate, and an epoch-changing economic crisis, an era in American public life appeared to end.


As the nation, including many Republicans, sighed with relief at the passing of the Bush administration, the conservatism he represented—the orthodoxy that had dominated U.S. politics since the 1980s—waned.


After a year of hard slogging, yesterday’s special election in Massachusetts made clear that reports of the demise of the Reagan Revolution were premature.


Obama’s first year as president has not only dramatized the potent institutional constraints that the U.S. government places on any would-be transformational leader—first among them the Senate, whose arcane rules guarantee disproportionate power to states with more cattle than people. A fact that explains why the United States possesses the best system of grazing subsidies in the industrialized world and the worst national health insurance.


Obama’s setbacks have also revealed the vitality of the political revolution that Ronald Reagan presided over, and that shaped national life for a generation. Even Bill Clinton, the lone Democratic president of the era, consolidated the Reagan agenda: He ended the federal entitlement to welfare, supported capital punishment, balanced the budget and pushed de-regulation. It was Clinton, after all, who declared the era of big government was over.


Even before yesterday’s stunning results from Massachusetts, the continuing hold of this conservative ideology and the persistent power of right-wing activists were evident.

Despite populist outrage over corporate bonuses, neither political party showed any real zest to impose substantial new regulation on the financial sector. Opting for stability over reform, Obama reappointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke; his other key economic policy advisers, Clinton administration veterans Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, shared the former president’s embrace of a Third Way that relied on market mechanisms, rather than government action, to address the nation’s problems. Obama himself, even as he pushed a massive short-term stimulus bill, spoke early and often about deficit control.

And then there’s the health care logjam. Both the modesty of the bills making their painstaking way through Congress, and the resistance they have provoked, testifies not only to the continued traction of conservative ideology, but to the powerful grassroots operations the right has constructed. These organizations have helped to finance and coordinate opposition to reform.


Meanwhile, “cap-and-trade,” a concept derived from the first Bush administration, faces heavy weather in Congress. More progressive responses to climate change, like taxes or simple emissions caps without the market feature -- the sort of environmental regulation that worked in the 1970s -- is not on the table.


Numerous left and liberal commentators have criticized Obama for his caution, of not pursuing an aggressively progressive program and not even pushing his own agenda hard enough. But the president may have perceived the steepness of the political landscape he faces better than his supporters. The time was not ripe for an Obama counter-revolution.


For Reagan’s election in 1980 marked an arrival as much as a departure--the culmination of a generation-long conservative mobilization that took the right from the political wilderness in the 1950s and 1960s through a period of heady grassroots organizing in the 1970s. Reagan’s triumph owed much to the right’s persistent efforts to proselytize its ideals, pioneer new political tactics and build potent organizations.

Of course, an economic collapse and a hapless president made Reagan’s victory possible -- just as those same variables helped Obama.


Despite hoopla about the “Netroots” and the excitement that Obama’s historic candidacy generated in 2008, no such grassroots movement had prepared the way for a liberal reconstruction of U.S. public life.


Even with that kind of foundation, Reagan’s achievements were piecemeal and hard-bought. Obama’s road is tougher and he cannot escape the shadow of Reagan’s handiwork.



Read more: The Reagan Revolution: It's alive! - Bruce J. Schulman - POLITICO.com






Read more: The Reagan Revolution: It's alive! - Bruce J. Schulman - POLITICO.com

 

[Team Brian GB]

Brian, how prevalent are medical malpractice lawsuits in Britain, and whats the typical payout ?

It just so happens that the first report on litigations in the United Kingdom in a decade is being published today, talk of coincidences.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Brian, how prevalent are medical malpractice lawsuits in Britain, and whats the typical payout ?

Okay, I've found numbers from the 'National Health Service Litigation Authority' and they will really blow your mind, the total figure they paid out for litigation claims was £807,115 ($1,313,512), roughly 1000 incidents are officially investigated in the NHS every year.

 

[RufRT]

Okay, I've found numbers from the 'National Health Service Litigation Authority' and they will really blow your mind, the total figure they paid out for litigation claims was £807,115 ($1,313,512), roughly 1000 incidents are officially investigated in the NHS every year.

Ok, now in comparison, a typical physician in the United States has the following limits on his malpractice insurance...1 million dollars yearly/3 million aggregate !

So, each physician in the United States carries the equivalent insurance for what the entire UK paid out in medical malpractice lawsuits last year !!!!!

It is a system run amok.

Can you imagine the amount of tests that are ordered unnecessarily to cover physician arses ?

Yet democrats will not touch this due to the trial lawyer lobby.

THAT is why they lost in Massachusetts last night...out of touch with the public and beholden to special interests

 

[Grinner]

Tort reform is a bullshit diversion put out by the repubs. It's a drop in the bucket.

 

[RufRT]

Tort reform is a bullshit diversion put out by the repubs. It's a drop in the bucket.

another nothing post by the Grinner....

 

[Twisted_Woody]

Ok, now in comparison, a typical physician in the United States has the following limits on his malpractice insurance...1 million dollars yearly/3 million aggregate !

So, each physician in the United States carries the equivalent insurance for what the entire UK paid out in medical malpractice lawsuits last year !!!!!

It is a system run amok.

Can you imagine the amount of tests that are ordered unnecessarily to cover physician arses ?

Yet democrats will not touch this due to the trial lawyer lobby.

THAT is why they lost in Massachusetts last night...out of touch with the public and beholden to special interests

Repubs are just as beholden to their own special interest groups.

Also, if you are going to have a medical system where having a baby can cost 20 grand, then you better well be insured, because if anything happens that can be considered the doctors fault, then the people who just forked out the ridiculous amount of money will surely come calling for it back.

 

[RufRT]

Repubs are just as beholden to their own special interest groups.

Also, if you are going to have a medical system where having a baby can cost 20 grand, then you better well be insured, because if anything happens that can be considered the doctors fault, then the people who just forked out the ridiculous amount of money will surely come calling for it back.

Welcome back Woody !

Some problems with your thoughts there. You are suggesting that people who forked over 20k are the only ones that file suit...not correct, it spans the spectrum of insured and non insured (its simply a meal ticket for most, a chance for a million dollar payday)

I'm all for payouts for legitimate errors and serious malpractice...but in most malpractice cases (including frivolous lawsuits), there is an out of court settlement in order to avoid a jury trial even when the physician is not at fault...insurance companies simply don't want to risk putting their fate in the hands of 12 lay persons.

Now, you brought up obstetrics....the average OB/GYN pays about 80k in insurance premiums yearly ! Add to that, the incredible number of unnecessary C Sections performed in this country due to malpractice concerns and you tell me, is the tort system for malpractice fair and not adding to bottom line healthcare costs ?

Dems want a system where healthcare provider reimbursement is cut to pay for universal healthcare, but tort reform is left intact. The net effect will be a shortage of docs as many smart kids in college recognize that starting out with a 250k college debt and that kind of playing field ain't going to cut it.

 

[Twisted_Woody]

Welcome back Woody !

Some problems with your thoughts there. You are suggesting that people who forked over 20k are the only ones that file suit...not correct, it spans the spectrum of insured and non insured (its simply a meal ticket for most, a chance for a million dollar payday)

I'm all for payouts for legitimate errors and serious malpractice...but in most malpractice cases (including frivolous lawsuits), there is an out of court settlement in order to avoid a jury trial even when the physician is not at fault...insurance companies simply don't want to risk putting their fate in the hands of 12 lay persons.

Now, you brought up obstetrics....the average OB/GYN pays about 80k in insurance premiums yearly ! Add to that, the incredible number of unnecessary C Sections performed in this country due to malpractice concerns and you tell me, is the tort system for malpractice fair and not adding to bottom line healthcare costs ?

Dems want a system where healthcare provider reimbursement is cut to pay for universal healthcare, but tort reform is left intact. The net effect will be a shortage of docs as many smart kids in college recognize that starting out with a 250k college debt and that kind of playing field ain't going to cut it.

Very true about the debt, but the ridiculous cost of education in the US is another area that needs reform IMO. I agree to various extents with your other points though. Thanks for the info!

The think the biggest problem, based on what I've read (which isn't that much compared to you and Raoul) is that 99.99999% of US statesmen are beholden to someone.

No change will ever happen unless it benefits those who paid the statesmen.

Until this changes - for example having a congress/senate/president that isn't beholden to lobbyists and corporate donations - then there will always be some sort of screwed up agenda on the table that doesn't have the interests of the people at heart.

You may be a republican, but it's no better on "your side" than it is on "their side". "Your side" just owes different people at the moment.

 

[RufRT]

The think the biggest problem, based on what I've read (which isn't that much compared to you and Raoul) is that 99.99999% of US statesmen are beholden to someone.

No change will ever happen unless it benefits those who paid the statesmen.

Until this changes - for example having a congress/senate/president that isn't beholden to lobbyists and corporate donations - then there will always be some sort of screwed up agenda on the table that doesn't have the interests of the people at heart.

You may be a republican, but it's no better on "your side" than it is on "their side". "Your side" just owes different people at the moment.

No doubt the entire system is based on lobbying/re-election/and special interests....it is a sad and dishonorable state.

Many thought this presidency would be different, my point was to demonstrate that it is anything but.

As far as being Republican, I'm not dyed in wool. I differ on a few of the core positions and hate the extreme religious right. I'm starting to realize I am more Independant and could easily vote for the right Democrat if one that took a sensible middle of the road approach came along.

Its not this one though.

and Raoul hasn't read much...other than tired old anti-republican cliches

 

[Raoul]

No doubt the entire system is based on lobbying/re-election/and special interests....it is a sad and dishonorable state.

Many thought this presidency would be different, my point was to demonstrate that it is anything but.

As far as being Republican, I'm not dyed in wool. I differ on a few of the core positions and hate the extreme religious right. I'm starting to realize I am more Independant and could easily vote for the right Democrat if one that took a sensible middle of the road approach came along.

Its not this one though.

and Raoul hasn't read much...other than tired old anti-republican cliches

You're an interesting character Ruf, i'll give you that much. Did you develop these Republican centric views after arriving in the US or where they already in place ? I myself, was a staunch Republican for years but left the party during the 90s.

 

[Moriarty]

Okay, I've found numbers from the 'National Health Service Litigation Authority' and they will really blow your mind, the total figure they paid out for litigation claims was £807,115 ($1,313,512), roughly 1000 incidents are officially investigated in the NHS every year.

They've just paid out another £300,000 to an administrator who was allegedly discriminated against on racial grounds.

 

[Deleted 20801]

Well I'll be damned. You are capable of making a normal post after all.

 

[Plechazunga]

they decided that government was the answer. When public outcry nixed this...

Public outcry didn't 'nix' anything. Nelson, Lieberman and Bayh did - the last two receiving huge contributions and personal share profits, respectively, from medical insurers, and with both their wives working for insurers/pharmaceuticals.

The public option was and remains very popular. (And a public option run by state governments is supported by 72% in that ABC-WaPo poll.)

The Dems got their strategy dead wrong. They should have fought for a single payer and compromised at a public option. Instead they dropped the public option before negotiations even started, then dropped opt-out, opt-in, and medicare expansion till they were left with nothing. And the White House stood by watching - there's no evidence they ever even wanted a PO.

 

[Avatar]

And that's probably because they were in a haste to pass it. When you do something , you should do it right from the start even if it takes time. Now even the time factor they placed in the equation won't be met. They did it in a chaotic rush and are paying for it.

 

[Plechazunga]

By the way RufRT, can you show us some evidence that tort reform alone would save the kind of money needed to sort out your chronically fecked system?

Name one government program that is run successfully or in the black ? right, none.

Don't you think the Pentagon is run successfully? What about Medicare? - it's certainly very popular. What about the firemen currently saving lives in Haiti? Are they useless?

Government's not supposed to make a profit, it's supposed to deliver services.

Still, I'd echo Raoul in saying it's nice to see you engage in a proper discussion, rather than just treating politics as a sport with a favourite team.

 

[Avatar]

Americans should decide : Is healthcare a basic human right and necessity or a place for business and profit? This is the bottom line. When they understand that and stop taking it from the business perspective, it will be easier to work on it

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Ok, now in comparison, a typical physician in the United States has the following limits on his malpractice insurance...1 million dollars yearly/3 million aggregate !

So, each physician in the United States carries the equivalent insurance for what the entire UK paid out in medical malpractice lawsuits last year !!!!!

It is a system run amok.

Can you imagine the amount of tests that are ordered unnecessarily to cover physician arses ?

Yet democrats will not touch this due to the trial lawyer lobby.

THAT is why they lost in Massachusetts last night...out of touch with the public and beholden to special interests

Hmm... The individual UK/Irish physician will be insured for a similar amount. For example, a consultant obstetrician can end up paying out over £100k each year on insurance alone. I don't know what sort of pay-out this insurance would cover but I'm guessing it's right up there.

I do agree that unnecesarily defensive medicine in the US is costing your healthcare system billions but I'm not clear exactly why this is. I once read a statistic that the Irish population is more litigious per capita than any other country in the world (yes, even America) Despite this, Irish physicians are fairly pragmatic when it comes to ordering investigations etc.

I don't know why US physicians over-investigate so routinely but it seems to go beyond the potential to be sued.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Americans should decide : Is healthcare a basic human right and necessity or a place for business and profit? This is the bottom line. When they understand that and stop taking it from the business perspective, it will be easier to work on it

That's the point I was trying to make earlier when asking RufRT if he favoured privatisation of education and emergency services. He didn't respond.

 

[Team Brian GB]

They've just paid out another £300,000 to an administrator who was allegedly discriminated against on racial grounds.

I am not surprised as employment tribunals tend to pay out far more than anything else, though figures I gave would have been related to negligence in healthcare delivery and not other matters such as this.

 

[RufRT]

That's the point I was trying to make earlier when asking RufRT if he favoured privatisation of education and emergency services. He didn't respond.

Sorry Mike, I'll respond now.

In many cities in the USA, Ambulance services are already privatised. There are typically several competing ambulance services alongside city owned services and the provided service is "USA Litigation Proof"...ie, its good enough to not be sued regularly.

Contrast this to recent problems in response time to Ambulance calls in Metro Toronto and vicinity....no coincidence that it is government run and stretched thin due to budgetary cuts.

Should Fire Departments be privatised ? If they provide better service, I have no problem with it.

To the person that cited Medicare... Reimbursements and services are continually being cut and many docs are opting out simply because it cannot sustain practices. When the Mayo Clinic opts out, you know its hardly a shining example of government efficiency.

The operation in Haiti is a government response that is required to coordinate the military/relief effort. As far as citing the Pentagon as an example of efficiency and well run government, well where do you start with waste in that department...unreal that is even an example.

 

[RufRT]

By the way RufRT, can you show us some evidence that tort reform alone would save the kind of money needed to sort out your chronically fecked system?



Don't you think the Pentagon is run successfully? What about Medicare? - it's certainly very popular. What about the firemen currently saving lives in Haiti? Are they useless?

Government's not supposed to make a profit, it's supposed to deliver services.

QUOTE]


Show me where I advocated Tort Reform alone as the entire solution ? You're putting words in my mouth. I stated that it was a part of the problem that is being slyly ignored due to special interest pressure and lobbyists. If you disagree with that then you're just another member of the cheerleader squad, with Raoul as your Captain.

I've alrady stated my opinion on the efficiency of the pentagon and medicare...they are money pits just like government run healthcare would be.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I've alrady stated my opinion on the efficiency of the pentagon and medicare...they are money pits just like government run healthcare would be.

I can't imagine government run healthcare, in tandem with bringing the pharmaceutical and legal industries into line, could be any more of a 'money pit' than the current system.

As I stated earlier, one of the big issues that is continually overlooked is the manipulative effect of the pharmaceutical industry. It shouldn't be possible to market drugs directly to the public and it really is a big problem. It's no coincidence pharma companies spend way more on advertising than they do on research and development. It causes patients to request drugs from their doctors which are inappropriate and skews the whole medical profession somewhat.

 

[RufRT]

You're an interesting character Ruf, i'll give you that much. Did you develop these Republican centric views after arriving in the US or where they already in place ? I myself, was a staunch Republican for years but left the party during the 90s.

Well, thats an interesting question. I lived in Canada prior to coming to the USA. I probably identified more with the Liberal Party at that time than I did with Conservatives who fretted over Sikhs joining the Mounties.

My views evolved in the USA. In my view, its a country where you can ascend as far as your work ethic and drive will take you. Its a country that values individual freedoms and those same individuals work hard to protect them. My identification with more conservative views occurred with the belief that less government intrusion in ones life is better than government control and a welfare state.

When I compare the rates of taxation in societys that rely on government programs, and compare them to the US where taxation is less and program cost is individual and market driven, I see very little in out of pocket difference. You pay more in taxes in Canada and the UK, for watered down services that are stretched and continually being cut. The american insurance costs are out of pocket, but services are generally available much quicker with many more resources available (aspects that need to be addressed such as pre-existing conditions can be solved). The problem here is the uninsured, but the entire system need not be overturned, when a more directed solution at covering uninsured would work and should be implemented.

I enjoy my individual freedom to carry a firearm legally, I believe in law and order, I think aggression from your enemies should be met with overwhelming force and as such advocate a strong and effective military. I believe in free market economics and individual social responsibility. I believe my kids should not be burdened with high interest rates and a massive national debt (republicans strayed from this in the last eight years and paid for it....Obama is rewriting the book on excessive spending) I think most of those principles are best advocated by center right parties and candidates and thats where my political viewpoint sits. Government is not the answer to societys ills.

 

[hungrywing]

Americans should decide : Is healthcare a basic human right and necessity or a place for business and profit? This is the bottom line. When they understand that and stop taking it from the business perspective, it will be easier to work on it

Very very idealistic. First off, it ignores tradition and social momentum. From there you get all the icky - and ubiquitous - economic runoff. You can't clear the streams and rivulets by damming the source.

In our time, one of astounding intellectual parity throughout the developed world populace, monetary wealth is unfortunately the amygdala's last refuge in its primal desire to express dominance.

Hence, considering its bastion within our skulls, the system will limp on until it dies and is reborn in a new form. (AKA all the cheap energy is gone and people realize they can no longer live vicariously watching grown men swat balls around for millions of dollars or watch nubile versions of their idealized selves traipse around on staged sets, again, for millions of dollars. Once these easily distributed sources of distraction are gone, look for surges in violent crime and all manner of hoarding and xenophobia as the human race turns to whatever it can get its hands on for its blood fix.)

America doesn't realize it has a time-limit on solving its identity "post WWII opportunistic juggernaut parading a tiny monument to 1950s Christian ideals at its summit whilst being carried by a mishmash horde of honest, disillusioned, greedy, myopic folk who all believe in the general enterprise but can't see a damn thing past all the clanking legal devices and monetary instruments sticking every which way out of the man-made mountain atop their heads" crises if it is to lead the world into a post-oil future.

Fire up the remains of carbon-based life and use that energy to rearrange some sand and minerals into a circuit board and plastic casing. You didn't create anything new. You just moved shit around. The same applies to everything from movies and music to law and enterprise. America used to be aware of this on a sub-cultural level due to its uniformly distributed Christian ideals. No one tried anything too drastic within the confines of the system, and if they did, its spread was hampered by limits in transportation of goods or funds, limits in communication, and again, by ideology.

Then the children of that generation rebelled and went off in search of their own ideology. Amusingly enough, they settled for an after-image of wealth left behind by post-WWII industriousness perpetuated largely by - surprise, surprise - Christian values of 'righteousness' and reward, which were in turn only granted credence by shameless war-profiteering. That one 'mutation' was enough to start us on the path to shameless hyper-capitalism- unhampered-by-collective-morality that we see today. The country eventually started to fragment along economic fault lines - which in a hideous display of collective national stupidity we currently see as geographic. Advancements in communication and transportation (spurred along by economic/cultural greed) did the rest in creating a no-limits, "free"-for-all (those're irony quotes, by the way). Each American Generation trying to outdo its predecessor with 'bigger' deals, 'broader' networks, 'faster' innovations, 'cooler' shit. No one realizing that: YOU'RE STILL MOVING THE SAME SHIT AROUND. IT'S JUST EASIER TO MAKE MORE OF A FUSS/BE LOUDER ABOUT IT.

What America needs to kick is its addiction to a belief that it's somehow the mast-head on a round spaceship traveling in nothing but a big circle. Stop being so vehement in rhetoric for the sake of show and nothing else. Take the pressure off the youth to succeed in your way, and odds are that after some meandering and false starts, they'll find their way. Stop declaring war for resources just because you have no confidence in your populace's resourcefulness. If you're smart enough to have been concerned about unrest forty years down the line, why not start educating the public about what's to come instead of slapping the unborn in the collective face with a big "Sorry, we didn't think you'd amount to anything, so in our infinite wisdom we did you a favor."

 

[RufRT]

I can't imagine government run healthcare, in tandem with bringing the pharmaceutical and legal industries into line, could be any more of a 'money pit' than the current system.

As I stated earlier, one of the big issues that is continually overlooked is the manipulative effect of the pharmaceutical industry. It shouldn't be possible to market drugs directly to the public and it really is a big problem. It's no coincidence pharma companies spend way more on advertising than they do on research and development. It causes patients to request drugs from their doctors which are inappropriate and skews the whole medical profession somewhat.

I always shunned the phamaceutical reps that showed up at the hospital to advocate their drugs (most of them are hot though )...especially when docs were being taken to lunch/dinner and plied with bribes essentially, in order to prescribe specific drugs being flogged. I felt it was unethical and unsavoury. Big pharma costs would be easy to cut.... free market competition in this sector would be excellent (a very republican idea )

Look at the level of individual taxation going on in the UK and Canada.....are you really getting "free healthcare" ?