On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:05:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:10:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What is
needed in the next step...price controls...and then the beginnings of a
single payer system that eventually pushed the insurers out of the biz.


That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of
all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric..

ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a
liberal



You're too fast... I was about to type the same thing...

I am also old enough to remember what happened when Nixon tried price
controls. We were in mile long gas lines. You "price control" doctors
out of business and they might just become veterinarians where the
real money is

i was working at my dad's gas station. the day before the controls
went into effect we got an emergency phone call from BP HQ telling us
to raise the price of gas by 5 cents.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:42:23 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:19:26 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:01:36 -0400, wrote:

That is certainly the next step that the left has in mind in spite of
all the rosy "you can keep your plan" rhetoric..

ROFLMAO!! the last guy to try that was richard nixon...hardly a
liberal

Huh?
Compared to anyone since Carter, he was damned near a communist.

seems anyone to your left is a commie.

On 4/11/10 6:51 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 00:12:42 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:




So your union is powerless. Next they will need to scrap their healthcare
insurance.

american unions are powerless. as the free market publication 'the
economist' pointed out several weeks ago in its article on 'american
exceptionalism', america has the most anti-union environment of any
country in the industrialized west

which is why the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 10 year.


Americans have yet to realize they are nothing more than chattel to
their corporate owners.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:43:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I believe tort is responsible for a few percentage points of the overall
cost.

Cite that.
Be sure to include the legal costs of the suits that fail and the
defensive medicine, useless tests and unneeded procedures to avoid or
blunt a tort.


Read up:

http://www.factcheck.org/president_u..._costs_of.html

--
Using studies that compare tort limits to no tort limits is a red
herring.
That does net really address costs overall. Simply limiting torts to a
quarter of a million does not really affect the number of torts. In
fact it may make lawyers file more of them.
You can make a very nice living on 33-40% of a quarter million.
The other thing that they don't look at in these kinds of statistics
are the unsuccessful suits. You chose to throw them out too.
The patient may not get a dime but the doctor's lawyer still sends in
his bill and we pay that.
This is why real tort reform would be "loser pays".

How did we all know you were a lawyer before you mentioned it. Most
legislators are too. Hmmm I see a pattern here.


Well, I'm sure you've got some study somewhere that supports your notion of
tort being the factor that's destroying healthcare, but I haven't seen it so
far.

I have no objection to "loser pays" legislation. I believe that's the case
already for some things, and I know there are cases where a truly frivolous
case has had the plaintiffs paying. This is true in some arbitration
agreements that I've seen.

You don't didn't know I was a lawyer before I mentioned I suppose. Do you
think I should run for office?


--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400, hk
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks
of your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and
suffereing, no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost
decrease dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in 2010.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 11/04/2010 2:27 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
wrote in message
...
"Bill wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:56:51 -0400,
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



Health insurance should be a commodity product similar in a number of
aspects to car insurance.

That is the GOP "across state lines" plan isn't it?
Car insurance is a lawyer scam too. They are on TV every day
soliciting people to suddenly discover a sore neck or other ailment
that will result in a quick, lucrative settlement.
The classic ad on TV here is the one that says "call a lawyer before
you call your insurance company" and we wonder why car insurance is
over $1000 a year in some places

Probably 40% of the drivers on the road are uninsured. Most do not
need
inusrance. They get in a crash. If it is their fault, and you are
insured your uninsured coverage pays. Other guy walks as he has no
assets. You hit the other guy and his lawyer gets him a million bucks
of
your insurance and assets. Cure the uninsured motorist problem in 5
minutes. Pass laws that say you can sue for as much insurance as you
carry. No insurance, your car is totaled, tough ****. I would require
the person at fault to pay direct medical costs. No pain and
suffereing,
no lost wages, no damages. You would see insurance cost decrease
dramatically.



Probably, you'd be wrong as usual. It's projected to be perhaps 17%.

--
Nom=de=Plume


Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?


plumetoid == BS

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


Canuck == too stupid to use google.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that ingrown
hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:29:40 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would
pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for
insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?

Exactly my point. It would actually save most people a lot of money
and they would be a lot more conscious about what they paid.
People would argue about ridiculous bills. We had an article here
about hospital bills (Lee Memorial Hospital) and it turns out they
bill about 4 times what they actually will take if you negotiate.


Good GAWD! It's not just about "saving money." We're talking about people's
health. Sometimes there's a correlation but not always. How would you like
to walk around with an ingrown toenail for a couple of months until it
festered to the point of amputation?

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:48:16 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--

Doesn't that fall into the personal responsibility area?
If you don't want to take care of your own body, why should we all
have to fix it when it breaks?
You can bet your ass that if this nanny state government ever did get
control of health care they would be forcing you to take care of
yourself. Helmet laws and seat belt laws would be the guideline and
justification for plenty of other intrusions on your life. They might
just ban hazardous activities. Seen a lawn dart recently?


So now you're going to expect people to diagnose their own health issues???
How about prostate cancer or breast cancer. All these require regular
screening. Feel free to not wear a helmet on your dirt bike. I don't think
it's required if you're not on public property.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:40:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Decrease on car insurance? Where did you pull that factoid from?



From a simple google search. It's projected to RISE to about 17% in 2010.

--
Probably because medical payments will go up that much and that is the
lions share of car insurance liability.

Rise "to 17%" of what?