"Free" healthcare?

[timesjoke]

With talk from both of the liberal canidates for President moving tword unified healthcare, I figured a discussion about how socialist medical care changes compared to the system we have in America:

 

A typical Canadian seeking surgical or other therapeutic treatment had to wait 18.3 weeks in 2007, an all-time high, according to new research published Monday by independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

 

Full story:

Wait times for surgery in Canada at all-time high: study

 

 

Another direction to consider "if" there is a problem or not is to look and see what kinds (if any) of branching business get created to try and fill that void.

 

Many companies have come into existance to help Canadians get the treatment they need but cannot get in a timely mannor in Canada.

 

One example is Timely Medical Alternatives Inc:

 

 

Private Medical Services – Timely Medical Alternatives Private Health Care Options

 

 

Another is Med Solution

 

Medical Tourism Services - Best hospitals overseas for affordable healthcare

 

Obviously there is a problem when industry is designed around that problem.

 

 

In fact, the problem with increased wait times is so large, there is conferance called "The Taming of the Queue" where experts meet and discuss how they can try and reduce the waiting times. They bring in experts from all over the world to partisipate with ideas and methods to try and help.

 

The most recent was Aprin 4th and 5th 2007 and while there have been huge changes in reporting methods, the waiting times are still getting worse.

 

Part of a speach by Tom McIntosh at the last conferance:

Even the Supreme Court of Canada made its feelings known by striking down Quebec?s ban on the sale of

private insurance for publicly insured services because of what it said was the government?s inability to deal effectively with wait times and allowing people to die while waiting for necessary services.

 

 

I would rather work to earn great medical care than get piss poor medical care for free and that is my entire point for threads like this. As time goes by, the liberals get more and more insistant to have socialized medicine and I don't want our system to get the problems like other Countries have where people are pulling their own teeth or must go to other Countries to get needed care when they are already paying massive and unfair taxes to pay for a system they cannot use.

[ImWithStupid]

I honestly believe that a government agency in charge of deciding who deserves medical care would be worse than belonging to the worst HMO in the world.

 

I know I don't want some beancounter to decide if I'm a good enough of a risk for care, based on my lifestyle, job, age, etc... I'd rather carry my own insurance and decide if I can afford it myself, not if my government feels I deserve a procedure.

 

Government buerocrats work by the numbers. There are instances in some of the other countries that have government controlled healthcare, that have put limits on the number of people in ER waiting rooms. They figured that would make it so that people would get care faster. There are reports of people being kept in ambulances outside so that they don't go over the government quota of people inside. I guess it's ok as long as you aren't the one in the ambulance.

 

My next problem with these plans is that their is two general thoughts of how this should be done. The first one the government guarantees healthcare, the second is that the government will force employers to provide healthcare.

 

In my opinion, if the government is going to guarantee healthcare, the private companies that do give healthcare benefits will just quit providing them.

 

I understand that healthcare is expensive. My mother's employer doesn't provide it and she pays a bunch of money for insurance. I just don't agree with why should the people who have healthcare lose it because someone else doesn't have it?

 

If the government thinks it is going to force all employers to provide coverage for employees. All this is going to do is ruin small businesses and destroy entrepreneuership in the country.

 

The government should find ways to reduce the cost of healthcare, not get in the business of providing it. There needs to be tort reform so that doctors and medical facilities don't have to pay 25% of their income to pay for medical malpractice insurance, because everyone sues for everything. There should be some control of the cost of medications. If Mexico can do it, without a socialist medical system, I'm sure the US could too. I understand the companies should be compensated for R&D costs, but the patent laws are being abused.

 

The drug companies are taking two or more drugs that are about to be open for generic production, combine them, call them something else and market it as a new drug with new patent coverage. It's a loophole that needs to be filled.

[Old Salt]

Listening to the Texas debate, I got the impression that both Hillary and Obama would force people to buy health insurance. If they didn't, they'd be fined. The only difference was would it be 100% (Hillary) or a lesser number (Obama). I guess the only way they'd know would be if someone showed up at the ER or doctor's office without insurance. I think you might call that the "Massachusetts Model".

 

I agree completely with tort reform. While there are some doctors who shouldn't be in the profession, too many doctors get sued for honest mistakes and all doctors are paying insurance premiums to pay for truly bad doctors' stupid mistakes and malpractice.

[snafu]

Because health care is so expensive I do feel it should be subsidized. I think everybody should get the best care available. Now having said that I think there needs to be guidelines to were people don't abuse it. With an open helth care you would have people (and they do now) abuse it. I mean they get a scratch or a cold and they're down at he ER. I think medicade is widley abused as is.

[Old Salt]

Because health care is so expensive I do feel it should be subsidized. I think everybody should get the best care available. Now having said that I think there needs to be guidelines to were people don't abuse it. With an open helth care you would have people (and they do now) abuse it. I mean they get a scratch or a cold and they're down at he ER. I think medicade is widley abused as is.

Health care would be much less expensive if GPs didn't have to worry so much about a malpractice suit that they order unnecessary and expensive tests just as a CYA.

[timesjoke]

Because health care is so expensive I do feel it should be subsidized. I think everybody should get the best car available. Now having said that I think there needs to be guidelines to were people don't abuse it. With an open helth care you would have people (and they do now) abuse it. I mean they get a scratch or a cold and they're down at he ER. I think medicade is widley abused as is.

 

 

This is the point.

 

The second you make anything "free" billions of people will abuse it. Sure it "sounds" good to offer unified healthcare but the only thing you get then is all bad. By removing the system we have now, you remove the reason for innovation. All hospital workers become government workers and when was the last time you talked with a government worker who truly cared about helping anyone?

 

The massive waiting lists for care in "every" nation with "free" healthcare is exactly what you will get here. There are stories of people pulling their own teeth for goodness sake, how free is that?

 

 

No, the government cannot provide anything that is good, every program they run is a complete mess, and this will not be the exception.

 

 

Bu the way, how do you "force" someone to purchase insurance? It is impossible, I can hear the ACLU lawyers getting ready for this one the second a minority gets any kind of trouble for not having insurance.

 

 

I am sure it will be found to be unconstitutional if challenged.

 

 

I support limiting lawsuits and even forming groups in every state to review cases and mandate mitigation.

 

I also support forcing the medical world to stop the practice of over charging patients who can pay to cover costs of those that can't. It is a never ending cycle that is the biggest reason for crazy healthcare costs. The hospitals already take these losses off their taxes every year so it is like getting paid twice for the same loss.

[Old Salt]

I support limiting lawsuits and even forming groups in every state to review cases and mandate mitigation.

A good portion of the problem is juries giving ridiculously high awards. They seem to have the mindset that "Oh, well. It's a rich insurance company that's going to pay so let's stick it to them."

[timesjoke]

A good portion of the problem is juries giving ridiculously high awards. They seem to have the mindset that "Oh, well. It's a rich insurance company that's going to pay so let's stick it to them."

 

And that is another example of mob rule.

 

When we allow mobs to rule we get liberals.

 

 

They do what the masses want instead of what is "right" for the Nation.

[snafu]

I support limiting lawsuits and even forming groups in every state to review cases and mandate mitigation.

 

 

A good portion of the problem is juries giving ridiculously high awards. They seem to have the mindset that "Oh, well. It's a rich insurance company that's going to pay so let's stick it to them."

I think that was a proposal for a bill to put a cap on malpractice law suits along with a cap on pharmaceutical law suits.

[Old Salt]

I think that was a proposal for a bill to put a cap on malpractice law suits along with a cap on pharmaceutical law suits.

And I absolutely agree.

[timesjoke]

I think that was a proposal for a bill to put a cap on malpractice law suits along with a cap on pharmaceutical law suits.

 

They just change the game.

 

So you limit the amount of a lawsuit, okay, to get around the limits, you simply file seperate suits. Each suit is judged on it's own instead of doing them all at the same time.

 

Then there is suing different people. Now they just lump everyone together but once you place limits, then their just gonna do it one person or company at a time.

 

 

The problem is not the amount of money but the mindset of people looking to cash in on things. The system was never supposed to be abused in this way.

[ImWithStupid]

They just change the game.

 

So you limit the amount of a lawsuit, okay, to get around the limits, you simply file seperate suits. Each suit is judged on it's own instead of doing them all at the same time.

 

Then there is suing different people. Now they just lump everyone together but once you place limits, then their just gonna do it one person or company at a time.

 

 

The problem is not the amount of money but the mindset of people looking to cash in on things. The system was never supposed to be abused in this way.

 

I say keep huge dollar judgements. I think the easiest way to deter frivilous lawsuits, would be to make the loser pay the legal fees for both sides. That way if their is a potential for a huge payout, the person who may have a real case, could get a good lawyer to work for a percentage and the doctor or hospital wouldn't be able to "out-lawyer" the little guy so easily.

[snafu]

They just change the game.

 

So you limit the amount of a lawsuit, okay, to get around the limits, you simply file seperate suits. Each suit is judged on it's own instead of doing them all at the same time.

 

Then there is suing different people. Now they just lump everyone together but once you place limits, then their just gonna do it one person or company at a time.

 

 

The problem is not the amount of money but the mindset of people looking to cash in on things. The system was never supposed to be abused in this way.

 

Yeah.. And that's why the bill didn't pass and that's why they need to stipulate double jeopardy or something like that. Pharmaceuticals is another real big one. Companies can't stay in business because of the law suits and so everybody losses because we don't have the drugs to cure the problems.

[timesjoke]

I say keep huge dollar judgements. I think the easiest way to deter frivilous lawsuits, would be to make the loser pay the legal fees for both sides. That way if their is a potential for a huge payout, the person who may have a real case, could get a good lawyer to work for a percentage and the doctor or hospital wouldn't be able to "out-lawyer" the little guy so easily.

 

We already have that.

 

Anyone with a decent case can get very good lawyers to take the case I believe for 36% of the payout. The problem is, the guy suing does not need to have a great lawyer because the trend is for juries to side with the "average Joe" and make big companies pay.

 

 

It is like politics, if your poor and like the Robin hood mentality, you vote liberal. Juries are made of "average Joes" and tend to see themselves as victims of these big companies anyway.

 

 

 

Yeah.. And that's why the bill didn't pass and that's why they need to stipulate double jeopardy or something like that. Pharmaceuticals is another real big one. Companies can't stay in business because of the law suits and so everybody losses because we don't have the drugs to cure the problems.

 

 

But again, it is difficult to change a mindset that allows people to try and cash in on things like this anyway. You change one rule, they find another to abuse.

 

What ever happened to being a "man", standing on your own two feet and earning your way through life?

 

Damn I must be getting old.

[ImWithStupid]

We already have that.

 

Anyone with a decent case can get very good lawyers to take the case I believe for 36% of the payout. The problem is, the guy suing does not need to have a great lawyer because the trend is for juries to side with the "average Joe" and make big companies pay.

 

 

It is like politics, if your poor and like the Robin hood mentality, you vote liberal. Juries are made of "average Joes" and tend to see themselves as victims of these big companies anyway.

 

I know what you mean, but I really think that if someone knows that if they lose they have to pay the doctor's legal bill too, and possibly lose everything they have instead of getting a "payday", they will think twice about filing a frivilous suit.

 

Also, most frivilous suits get filed, because the attorney knows, that the doctor or hospital will figure out how much it would cost to defend the suit and settle for less then that amount. If the hospital or doctor knows that if they win they won't have a legal bill to pay, they will be more likely to challenge the suit, then to settle.

[Old Salt]

I know what you mean, but I really think that if someone knows that if they lose they have to pay the doctor's legal bill too, and possibly lose everything they have instead of getting a "payday", they will think twice about filing a frivilous suit.

 

Also, most frivilous suits get filed, because the attorney knows, that the doctor or hospital will figure out how much it would cost to defend the suit and settle for less then that amount. If the hospital or doctor knows that if they win they won't have a legal bill to pay, they will be more likely to challenge the suit, then to settle.

On top of that, the person filing a frivolous suit should be charged.

[timesjoke]

I know what you mean, but I really think that if someone knows that if they lose they have to pay the doctor's legal bill too, and possibly lose everything they have instead of getting a "payday", they will think twice about filing a frivilous suit.

 

Most of these guys don't have any money, if they had that kind of money they would not be trying to take money they do not deserve from the insurance and doctors.

 

Even if you get a judgement, you get nothing but the paper it is written on.

 

 

 

Also, most frivilous suits get filed, because the attorney knows, that the doctor or hospital will figure out how much it would cost to defend the suit and settle for less then that amount. If the hospital or doctor knows that if they win they won't have a legal bill to pay, they will be more likely to challenge the suit, then to settle.

 

Again, there is nothing to take, but even if there was, it is very difficult to take money from people even when common sense tells us they have money but can hide it from the courts. Look at O.J. they have judgements against him, he haa a multi million dollar home here in Florida and somehow has plenty of money to keep that going and living life like a high roller, but looks on paper as if he is broke.

 

 

 

Like Old Salt says, make it a crime to file a lawsuit that has no merrit and I would even take it so far to also charge the lawyer who should have known better.

[ImWithStupid]

Most of these guys don't have any money, if they had that kind of money they would not be trying to take money they do not deserve from the insurance and doctors.

 

Even if you get a judgement, you get nothing but the paper it is written on.

 

Again, there is nothing to take, but even if there was, it is very difficult to take money from people even when common sense tells us they have money but can hide it from the courts. Look at O.J. they have judgements against him, he haa a multi million dollar home here in Florida and somehow has plenty of money to keep that going and living life like a high roller, but looks on paper as if he is broke.

 

Like Old Salt says, make it a crime to file a lawsuit that has no merrit and I would even take it so far to also charge the lawyer who should have known better.

 

This is where the part about the doctor or hospital's insurance being more likely to challenge the suit, as opposed to offer a settlement, to avoid legal fees, would make it less likely that the person who would now file a frivilous lawsuit, would be able to get an attorney to work for a percentage on a bad case. They won't take the case, because they probably won't get paid. It would take the legs out from under the ambulance chasing attorneys.

[timesjoke]

This is where the part about the doctor or hospital's insurance being more likely to challenge the suit, as opposed to offer a settlement, to avoid legal fees, would make it less likely that the person who would now file a frivilous lawsuit, would be able to get an attorney to work for a percentage on a bad case. They won't take the case, because they probably won't get paid. It would take the legs out from under the ambulance chasing attorneys.

 

I don't understand to be honest.

 

If the "client" has no real money to speak of, how do you propose the insurance company or hospital will get reimbursed for the cost of defending the case if they win?

 

 

This is my point, the people filing these suits have nothing to lose so even if your idea was put into effect, how do you get blood from a turnip?

[ImWithStupid]

I don't understand to be honest.

 

If the "client" has no real money to speak of, how do you propose the insurance company or hospital will get reimbursed for the cost of defending the case if they win?

 

 

This is my point, the people filing these suits have nothing to lose so even if your idea was put into effect, how do you get blood from a turnip?

 

They won't have to, because an attorney won't take a bad case if they can't get a percentage of the settlement, because the hospital would be more likely to take it to trial instead of settling.

 

Most settlements are based on cost of fighting the suit as opposed to offering a lesser amount.

 

Ambualnce chaser attorneys live on the hopes of an insurance settlement. The insurance company predicts it costs, lets say $150,000 in legal fees to defend a suit, they will then offer an amount less then that to settle out of court. If it is less likely that an insurance company will settle, because their legal costs would be placed on the "client", a "client" with a frivilous claim won't be able to get an ambulance chasing attorney to take the case.

[hugo]

The answer to high health care costs is simple. Eliminate the FDA, eliminate licensing requirements for health care workers and make all drugs available without a prescription to anyone over 18.

[timesjoke]

The answer to high health care costs is simple. Eliminate the FDA, eliminate licensing requirements for health care workers and make all drugs available without a prescription to anyone over 18.

 

Well that last part will certainly reduce the population real fast.

[snafu]

The answer to high health care costs is simple. Eliminate the FDA, eliminate licensing requirements for health care workers and make all drugs available without a prescription to anyone over 18.

 

Well that last part will certainly reduce the population real fast.

 

No the first part would. Without FDA control for quality they could be putting horse in the pills and there would be no way to stop them.

[ImWithStupid]

No the first part would. Without FDA control for quality they could be putting horse in the pills and there would be no way to stop them.

 

Even with FDA control, bad meds make it to market. Remember the Phen/Fen issues of the 90's. Nothing like having your meds destroy healthy heart valves. In the FDA's defense, the combo wasn't being used as it was designed, it was an off scrip usage that caused the problems, but it would be worse without some sort of regulations on safety. If there wasn't regulations we would end up with more of this...

 

[attach=full]1604[/attach]

[snafu]

I think the FDA can be more lenient with drugs that could help life threading aliments though. If you are gonna die anyway you could just sign a waver for experimental drugs that could possibly save or prolong your life. I think they did that for some drugs for AIDS but it took a big pushed to get it approved. And in the mean time a lot of peopled died waiting for these drugs.