Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on February 25, 2010, 02:46:09 PM
-
-
That was actually a great speech by Durbin, but he's just saying the same thing which is essentially they're not going work with the Republicans.
Here's the thing, let's agree that the issue of Tort reform is small and will only provide a nominal savings. Then why not meet the Republicans half way? Make a partial tort reform. The Dems know it's a major sticking point. They agree it's small. So why not compromise a little? Neither side wants to give up shit, it's ridiculous.
-
That was actually a great speech by Durbin, but he's just saying the same thing which is essentially they're not going work with the Republicans.
Here's the thing, let's agree that the issue of Tort reform is small and will only provide a nominal savings. Then why not meet the Republicans half way? Make a partial tort reform. The Dems know it's a major sticking point. They agree it's small. So why not compromise a little? Neither side wants to give up shit, it's ridiculous.
What would be the point? All this would do is reduce patients rights with no real savings.
-
What would be the point?
C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E
-
C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E
Just For the sake of Compromise? Thats seems rather stupid and pointless when all it would do is put the boot even tighter on the neck of the patient for no real reason other than a minuscule "political victory" while the rights of the patient further dwindle.
Stupid idea.
-
Not for the sake of compromise. To get the bill passed to help a greater # of people. Not all Republican ideas are bad. You're attitude is exactly why this bill is fucked up, bogged down, filled with pork, biased, and sitting dead in the water right now.
As long as the Dems continue to say we "must" have this or we "must" have that, nothing is going to change.
Wake up, grow up, and deal with the political realities of life.
-
Not for the sake of compromise. To get the bill passed to help a greater # of people. Not all Republican ideas are bad. You're attitude is exactly why this bill is fucked up, bogged down, filled with pork, biased, and sitting dead in the water right now.
As long as the Dems continue to say we "must" have this or we "must" have that, nothing is going to change.
Wake up, grow up, and deal with the political realities of life.
How is limiting patients rights while not saving anything a good idea?
-
You're trying to frame this as a something for nothing issue. If the Dems want there healthcare bill passed, they're going to have to include Republican ideas.
What don't you understand?
Not, what don't you agree with. What don't you understand?
-
You're trying to frame this as a something for nothing issue. If the Dems want there healthcare bill passed, they're going to have to include Republican ideas.
What don't you understand?
Not, what don't you agree with. What don't you understand?
A dumb and worthless idea is a dumb and worthless idea no matter who or what party thought of it. Including something that benefits nobody and is an overwhelming detriment does not serve anyone well. There is no point to include garbage just because a differing side thought of it.
Again, that is just stupid.
-
A dumb and worthless idea is a dumb and worthless idea no matter who or what party thought of it. Including something that benefits nobody and is an overwhelming detriment does not serve anyone well. There is no point to include garbage just because a differing side thought of it.
Again, that is just stupid.
The only thing stupid is you clowns unwilling to compromise and killing the entire healthcare bill fucking over everybody. This bill doesn't have to die, it can be fixed.
-
The only thing stupid is you clowns unwilling to compromise and killing the entire healthcare bill fucking over everybody. This bill doesn't have to die, it can be fixed.
The American people want it DEAD, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1. So kill the thing and start from scratch.
-
The only thing stupid is you clowns unwilling to compromise and killing the entire healthcare bill fucking over everybody. This bill doesn't have to die, it can be fixed.
Hey, I don`t support the current bill and I can certainly recognize a worthless and pointless idea when I see one. Including something just for the sake of including it is a travesty and you should not stand for it. That only opens the door for more half-rate measures and terrible ideas.
In the end, Single Payer is the only solution as the rest of the industrialized 1st world already realizes and operates on. The majority of Republicans and Democrats are not there yet because of the stranglehold of corporate interests on the people and on the government.
-
The American people want it DEAD, by a margin of nearly 3-to-1. So kill the thing and start from scratch.
The American people overwhelmingly want reform, and that's what this bill could be.
Hey, I threw your name out as a possible right leaning mod for the forum, in the other thread. You up for something like that? Don't always agree with you, but you seem to be pretty level headed.
-
Hey, I don`t support the current bill and I can certainly recognize a worthless and pointless idea when I see one. Including something just for the sake of including it is a travesty and you should not stand for it. That only opens the door for more half-rate measures and terrible ideas.
In the end, Single Payer is the only solution as the rest of the industrialized 1st world already realizes and operates on. The majority of Republicans and Democrats are not there yet because of the stranglehold of corporate interests on the people and on the government.
That's called reality, grow up and deal with it. Nothing's going to happen overnight. Healthcare reform can be done in smaller steps, it can be done with great ideas from both sides, and everybody can benefit. But nothing's going to happen if nobody makes any compromise.
-
The American people overwhelmingly want reform, and that's what this bill could be.
Well, the Obama administration needs better PR or something, because the American people ain't buying it, as far as this bill is concerned.
Hey, I threw your name out as a possible right leaning mod for the forum, in the other thread. You up for something like that? Don't always agree with you, but you seem to be pretty level headed.
I haven't really considered it. I don't know if I'd have the time.
-
That's called reality, grow up and deal with it. Nothing's going to happen overnight. Healthcare reform can be done in smaller steps, it can be done with great ideas from both sides, and everybody can benefit. But nothing's going to happen if nobody makes any compromise.
I don`t agree. Compromise can certainly be a waste of time, especially when you are compromising on something that is not beneficial to anyone and does nothing to address any problem in the short term and especially in the long term.
Compromising on a steaming pile of shit doesn`t make it smell any better.
-
Well, the Obama administration needs better PR or something, because the American people ain't buying it, as far as this bill is concerned.
That's because this bill isn't reform. It's a monstrosity that hooks up corporations, healthcare providers, Big Pharma, Unions, etc.
But, with some compromise it could be a great reform bill.
-
I don`t agree. Compromise can certainly be a waste of time, especially when you are compromising on something that is not beneficial to anyone and does nothing to address any problem in the short term and especially in the long term.
Compromising on a steaming pile of shit doesn`t make it smell any better.
Compromise is beneficial because it will help get desperately needed reform passed which benefits everyone, not a select few. Smaller steps, not giant leaps, will be far more effective.
-
That's because this bill isn't reform. It's a monstrosity that hooks up corporations, healthcare providers, Big Pharma, Unions, etc.
But, with some compromise it could be a great reform bill.
Then put the bill out of its misery and start from scratch, as the bulk of Americans want.
-
Hey, I don`t support the current bill and I can certainly recognize a worthless and pointless idea when I see one. Including something just for the sake of including it is a travesty and you should not stand for it. That only opens the door for more half-rate measures and terrible ideas.
In the end, Single Payer is the only solution as the rest of the industrialized 1st world already realizes and operates on. The majority of Republicans and Democrats are not there yet because of the stranglehold of corporate interests on the people and on the government.
Maybe you dont read too many business sites TA. Europe is near collapse due to the massive debt problems due to their socialistic system, the canadian premere came here for surgery, reports of horrible conditions of health care coming from the UK, etc.
-
Maybe you dont read too many business sites TA. Europe is near collapse due to the massive debt problems due to their socialistic system, the canadian premere came here for surgery, reports of horrible conditions of health care coming from the UK, etc.
Funny how socialist healthcare ain't so great, when your own hide is on the line.
-
The American people overwhelmingly want reform, and that's what this bill could be.
Hey, I threw your name out as a possible right leaning mod for the forum, in the other thread. You up for something like that? Don't always agree with you, but you seem to be pretty level headed.
Absolutely not. This bill is a disaster and needs to be buried and sprinkled with holy water after we drive three stakes through it.
-
I wrote about this in detail before, I don't want to keep explaining it. Tort reform is 1 piece of malpractice reform. Tort reform refers specifically on limiting damages awarded at trial. Studies show that it has brought down costs some in states that have tort limits. Certainly not enough to have a large impact, that is true. Remember, it was the greedy trial lawyers who pushed up awards because they make a %.
We need complete MALPRACTICE reform. That includes: reducing overall lawsuits, incentives for lawyers only to take good cases, reasonable limits on settlements & awards, judicial or arbitrator pre-screenings to throw out junk lawsuits, plaintiff pays legal fees if determined a junk lawsuit, limiting the # of defendents named in a suit. All of these measures will have a trickle down effect to limiting defensive medicine practices by docs and hospitals throughout the nation, that is the real cost savings. Limit lawsuits to legitimate cases of neglegence. Too often lawyers take questionable cases because they know hospitals and large groups will settle. Every time someone is named in a suit, they pay legal defense fees and miss work for depositions, court, meetings with lawyers, etc. Any time a doctor is named in a suit, it is on their permanent record and regardless of outcome, their rates increase! The whole system together is very costly.
Adonis, you are looking at this through a microscope rather than seeing the whole field. For the last 10 yrs, docs have been pleading for malpractice reform because their insurance costs went up (but wages stayed stagnant).
In adonis' beloved European healthcare systems, they have a fraction of the legal costs and a fraction of the overall lawsuits (settlement or jury judgements). Countries with socialized medicine realize they need to limit excessive legal costs.
-
Shoot - didnt you know? TA is the legal scholar, medical expert, policy expert, statistician, all wrapped up in one.
-
Absolutely not. This bill is a disaster and needs to be buried and sprinkled with holy water after we drive three stakes through it.
No, this bill can be salvaged if all those clowns would work together for everybody's benefit. Though, realistically speaking, as this thread seems to show, you might be right.
-
No, this bill can be salvaged if all those clowns would work together for everybody's benefit. Though, realistically speaking, as this thread seems to show, you might be right.
1. Individual mandate is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
2. $500 billion in tax increases.
3. No cost control whatsoever.
4. Pushes millions onto medicade which is broke and will cause state tax hikes since the states pay for that.
-
1. Individual mandate is unconstitutional and unacceptable.
2. $500 billion in tax increases.
3. No cost control whatsoever.
4. Pushes millions onto medicade which is broke and will cause state tax hikes since the states pay for that.
And?
Have you been reading the thread? I said that they have to include Republican ideas and compromise.
I need a beer.
And Shootfighter:
You physicians are a PART of the problem, not on the side. Healthcare inflation significantly outstrips regular inflation. Not one thing in that post of yours talks about you doctors getting your fuck-ups in line. Start with your own profession actually spending time with patients, getting to know what the fuck is going on, and reducing malpractice through better patient interaction and improved medicine.
I've been misdiagnosed and stuck in a lot of pain as a result. When you don't have to live through it, you don't care. Their only saving grace was that I'm not the suing type.
Now I really need a beer...
-
And?
Have you been reading the thread? I said that they have to include Republican ideas and compromise.
I need a beer.
And Shootfighter:
You physicians are a PART of the problem, not on the side. Healthcare inflation significantly outstrips regular inflation. Not one thing in that post of yours talks about you doctors getting your fuck-ups in line. Start with your own profession actually spending time with patients, getting to know what the fuck is going on, and reducing malpractice through better patient interaction and improved medicine.
I've been misdiagnosed and stuck in a lot of pain as a result. When you don't have to live through it, you don't care. Their only saving grace was that I'm not the suing type.
Now I really need a beer...
I dont know Skip - having the IRS be debt collector and enforcer for ObamaCare is sort of something I will never ever find acceptable on any level.
-
Al Gore voted against tort reform, too. You can't put oilmen in the white house and expect energy reform. You also can't put lawyers in the white house and expect tort reform. :)
The problem is simple: No tort reform or caps on malpractice will ultimately lead to reduced care for everyone. This is a matter of simple math and has nothing to do with politics.
If politicians (who are trial lawyers) had any capacity for for honesty we wouldn't even be having this discussion. They're better educated than the general public and understand malpractice premiums are unavoidable and based upon many factors.
People for universal healthcare sometimes don't understand nothing is ever free or that taxpayers aren't an ATM. I'm for an affordable, sustainable national healthcare plan, but it can't be done without controlling the costs associated with delivering medical care.
-
TA don't you get it? Socialized Medicine works for members of Congress, Medicare recipients and douchebags like headgiver6. Everyone else must fend for themselves.
Hope this helps.
-
I dont know Skip - having the IRS be debt collector and enforcer for ObamaCare is sort of something I will never ever find acceptable on any level.
No, but perhaps there may be other means of doing things you do find acceptable. Each side is going to have to give and neither side wants to cede anything. Business as usual...
-
TA don't you get it? Socialized Medicine works for members of Congress, Medicare recipients and douchebags like headgiver6. Everyone else must fend for themselves.
Hope this helps.
No it doesn't help, as you are an idiot.
The Democrats exempted themselves from ever going on ObamaCare, the very same plan they want to have all of us eventuality go on, and dont give me a lie that it is not for everyone, as that is their eventual goal.
So they tell us it is good, but they dont want it, and they have to use a budget Bill Procedure to pass the POS Bill.
Go feed your garbage elsewhere, as we all know this Bill stinks.
-
No, but perhaps there may be other means of doing things you do find acceptable. Each side is going to have to give and neither side wants to cede anything. Business as usual...
I did not vote and send my Representatives to Washington to meet half way on a Bill that will BankRupt us.
Our Politicians are stealing from our Children and our grandchildren, and enough is enough.
If someone enters my home to burglarize me, I wont say "hey lets me half way, just take half my stuff !!" Just like those 2 guy's tried to steal from 240's Brother, He didn't meet them half way either.
-
Here's the thing about medical malpractice. Studies have proven that if the Dr is a nice guy with a good relationship with his/her patients he is less likely to be sued regardless of his care. Dr's who seem 'cold and distant' are more likely to be sued regardless of the care they provide. That is a fundamental problem right there. It's not care based in a majority of cases, it's relationship based. A quick fix is to make Dr's aware of this, tell them it's in their best interest to at least show some interest and care regarding the patient and then the stupid lawsuits would go down.
I think something that should be included is the ability to waive liability for cheaper care. If you're happy with your Dr and confident in their abilities you should be able to say 'okay i trust you to not fu*k up and if you do i will not sue you or i will put a cap limit on it' The patient should have that right to decide.
-
Here's the thing about medical malpractice. Studies have proven that if the Dr is a nice guy with a good relationship with his/her patients he is less likely to be sued regardless of his care. Dr's who seem 'cold and distant' are more likely to be sued regardless of the care they provide. That is a fundamental problem right there. It's not care based in a majority of cases, it's relationship based. A quick fix is to make Dr's aware of this, tell them it's in their best interest to at least show some interest and care regarding the patient and then the stupid lawsuits would go down.
I think something that should be included is the ability to waive liability for cheaper care. If you're happy with your Dr and confident in their abilities you should be able to say 'okay i trust you to not fu*k up and if you do i will not sue you or i will put a cap limit on it' The patient should have that right to decide.
New Flash!!!!! KCBaller has solved the problem.
Note to all Doctors: "Just be a nice person !!"
KcBaller, is so ignorant, he makes Blacken look like Einstein !
-
Go to the doctor at your own risk. Seems like doctors could make patients sign liability waivers or something.
-
New Flash!!!!! KCBaller has solved the problem.
Note to all Doctors: "Just be a nice person !!"
KcBaller, is so ignorant, he makes Blacken look like Einstein !
Do you even know what you are talking about? This was a study done on malpractice suits if you understood that, maybe sought out some truth you might be enlightened. Instead please stay ignorant and pretend it means nothing.
8)
-
I did not vote and send my Representatives to Washington to meet half way on a Bill that will BankRupt us.
Our Politicians are stealing from our Children and our grandchildren, and enough is enough.
If someone enters my home to burglarize me, I wont say "hey lets me half way, just take half my stuff !!" Just like those 2 guy's tried to steal from 240's Brother, He didn't meet them half way either.
We're not talking about a burglar in your home, we're talking about a system that affects everybody. As such, it can't be all your way or all their way. Somewhere there needs to be some middle ground established.
What if the Dems took out a lot of the pork, stopped trying to cover everybody, and made the program fiscally responsible? You think it's unfair for Repubs to have to give up anything? I don't. If one side can sacrifice, so can the other. Of course, it's not looking like either side will give anything of substance, so...
-
We're not talking about a burglar in your home, we're talking about a system that affects everybody. As such, it can't be all your way or all their way. Somewhere there needs to be some middle ground established.
What if the Dems took out a lot of the pork, stopped trying to cover everybody, and made the program fiscally responsible? You think it's unfair for Repubs to have to give up anything? I don't. If one side can sacrifice, so can the other. Of course, it's not looking like either side will give anything of substance, so...
We are talking about Burglary, as this is exactly what it is.
If you found out your spouse had taken out 20 credit cards, maxed out all 20 of them to over 200,000 grand in credit card debt, and she had just applied for 20 more in your child's name,, would you agree halfway, and tell her to only get 10 ( instead of 20), and all will be ok ?
Their are some things you can meet halfway on, this is not one for them.
We cant afford Obama Care.
WE ARE BEYOND BROKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO STOP SPENDING !!!!!!
-
No it doesn't help, as you are an idiot.
The Democrats exempted themselves from ever going on ObamaCare, the very same plan they want to have all of us eventuality go on, and dont give me a lie that it is not for everyone, as that is their eventual goal.
So they tell us it is good, but they dont want it, and they have to use a budget Bill Procedure to pass the POS Bill.
Go feed your garbage elsewhere, as we all know this Bill stinks.
Even if they do use the nuclear option, word is that Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House to pass it, anyway.
The American people have clearly stated that, either they start from scratch or ditch this crap altogether.
The Dems are simply tone-deaf, claiming that "it's too late" too start over. It's NOT too late, for the American people.
The Dems are trying to jam this through, before they get smacked silly in November.
-
Even if they do use the nuclear option, word is that Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House to pass it, anyway.
The American people have clearly stated that, either they start from scratch or ditch this crap altogether.
The Dems are simply tone-deaf, claiming that "it's too late" too start over. It's NOT too late, for the American people.
The Dems are trying to jam this through, before they get smacked silly in November.
Not yet. But a few more Back Room Purchases .........and they might.
-
WE ARE BEYOND BROKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO STOP SPENDING !!!!!!
Exactly. So my question to you again is, if the Dems were able to (hypothetically) concede to a fiscally responsible bill, shouldn't the Repubs make concessions?
-
Exactly. So my question to you again is, if the Dems were able to (hypothetically) concede to a fiscally responsible bill, shouldn't the Repubs make concessions?
Their is nothing "fiscally responsible" about the main part of their Bill, which they will not remove.
So the answer to your hypothetical question is NO !
-
Even if they do use the nuclear option, word is that Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House to pass it, anyway.
The American people have clearly stated that, either they start from scratch or ditch this crap altogether.
The Dems are simply tone-deaf, claiming that "it's too late" too start over. It's NOT too late, for the American people.
The Dems are trying to jam this through, before they get smacked silly in November.
How is it the nuclear option? Republicans have defended using it as within the rules. Look at the post i put up earlier today. In 2005 republicans said a majority is a majority and reconciliation is within the rules.
-
Here's the thing about medical malpractice. Studies have proven that if the Dr is a nice guy with a good relationship with his/her patients he is less likely to be sued regardless of his care. Dr's who seem 'cold and distant' are more likely to be sued regardless of the care they provide. That is a fundamental problem right there. It's not care based in a majority of cases, it's relationship based. A quick fix is to make Dr's aware of this, tell them it's in their best interest to at least show some interest and care regarding the patient and then the stupid lawsuits would go down.
I think something that should be included is the ability to waive liability for cheaper care. If you're happy with your Dr and confident in their abilities you should be able to say 'okay i trust you to not fu*k up and if you do i will not sue you or i will put a cap limit on it' The patient should have that right to decide.
Likable doctors do get sued less but having a perfect track record only saves so much. The financial result of claims paid still gets passed on to policy holders and investors.
Let's face it, you can't "... at least show some interest and care regarding the patient.." when insurance companies have been cutting reimbursements while costs of doing business keep going up. Delivering healthcare means you must keep the office doors open, I don't see why people can't understand something this painfully simple. Someone with a few hundred thousand dollars in debt (college and practice) can't possibly stay in the business of helping people with the changes put forth unless some costs are cut.
If someone wants to advance an argument for socialized medicine where the govt is responsible for malpractice claims (similar to vaccines), go right ahead. I'd love to see people's reactions to $20-30 Million dollar claims when the taxpayer is left holding the bag, LOL! It's just a myth that all doctors are rich and that malpractice claims are free money. Some specialists pay well over $100K/year in malpractice insurance.
-
How is it the nuclear option? Republicans have defended using it as within the rules. Look at the post i put up earlier today. In 2005 republicans said a majority is a majority and reconciliation is within the rules.
And Obama said "the founding fathers didnt have this in mind" and said it would be the end of the government as we know it.Its only ok if libs use it.
-
And Obama said "the founding fathers didnt have this in mind" and said it would be the end of the government as we know it.Its only ok if libs use it.
Never said it was okay just that republicans have defended it during the last admin so how can you complain now?
-
How is it the nuclear option? Republicans have defended using it as within the rules. Look at the post i put up earlier today. In 2005 republicans said a majority is a majority and reconciliation is within the rules.
And, during that same year, Democrats, including Barack Hussein Obama, whimpered and whined about the nuclear option as a blatant power grab, with Biden claiming that they would never resort to such, should the Democrats regain power.
-
Never said it was okay just that republicans have defended it during the last admin so how can you complain now?
Because, the Republicans didn't use it in 2005 and they didn't do so to pass something that the American people CLEARLY, EMPHATICALLY DO NOT WANT!!
-
Because, the Republicans didn't use it in 2005 and they didn't do so to pass something that the American people CLEARLY, EMPHATICALLY DO NOT WANT!!
Whether they used it or not is not the point here. They defended saying 51 votes and you win. Period. If the Dems have 51 votes and pass it, it's a win. The republicans can get upset all they want it's using the same rules they have used and defended before.
-
Whether they used it or not is not the point here. They defended saying 51 votes and you win. Period. If the Dems have 51 votes and pass it, it's a win. The republicans can get upset all they want it's using the same rules they have used and defended before.
This is EXACTLY what happened up here in Canada during our Quebec sovereignty referendum.
Prime Minister Jean Cretien said the YES side had to have a clear mandate for separation, he would not accept 51%
In the end, it came down to 50.4% voting NO, with 49.6% voting YES Quebec should separate from Canada.
Of course, as a federalist, Jean Cretien found that 50.4% NO vote from Quebecois was acceptable. lol
-
This is EXACTLY what happened up here in Canada during our Quebec sovereignty referendum.
Prime Minister Jean Cretien said the YES side had to have a clear mandate for separation, he would not accept 51%
In the end, it came down to 50.4% voting NO, with 49.6% voting YES Quebec should separate from Canada.
Of course, as a federalist, Jean Cretien found that 50.4% NO vote from Quebecois was acceptable. lol
One of my friends was pro sovereignty. He really believed it was affordable/sustainable.
Had to been one of the most uptight people I've ever met. He was from Quebec, of course. :)
-
One of my friends was pro sovereignty. He really believed it was affordable/sustainable.
Had to been one of the most uptight people I've ever met. He was from Quebec, of course. :)
The only pro-sovereigntists were from Quebec. Thank Goodness that issue has finally been laid to rest.
The hilarious part is many were fearful of being gobbled up by English Canada,
yet thought maybe they could join with the US? Talk about monoculture. They'd have been lost for sure.
Many were foolish enough to think it was affordable & sustainable. Most have since wised up.
-
Likable doctors do get sued less but having a perfect track record only saves so much. The financial result of claims paid still gets passed on to policy holders and investors.
Let's face it, you can't "... at least show some interest and care regarding the patient.." when insurance companies have been cutting reimbursements while costs of doing business keep going up.
Just like shootfighter, you keep wanting one sided reform. Let's drop the pretense that juries award huge damages for minor shit that was beyond a doctors control. That may happen once in a blue moon, but in reality, the doctors have to fuck up pretty significantly. Clean your own profession up and go after the fuck-ups with a vengeance.
You don't want to show interest and care with a patient because you're pissed off at the insurance company, then don't treat the patient.
-
Whether they used it or not is not the point here. They defended saying 51 votes and you win. Period. If the Dems have 51 votes and pass it, it's a win. The republicans can get upset all they want it's using the same rules they have used and defended before.
And the Democrats were crying about this in 2005, about confirming justices, not because the people had a problem with them, but because the DEMS had a problem with them.
Then, they cried and whined about using the nuclear option. Yet, now they want to do it, to impose some crap that the American people don't want.
That is just plain ridiculous and will lead to the Dems getting their clocks cleaned this November. Then, they'll look all dumbfounded wondering why they got beat.
And, I guarantee you, when the Dems are in the minority and the GOP wants to pass something that the people want but the Dems don't want, they'll go for the filibuster and WHINE LIKE BABIES at the very hint of a nuclear option.
-
And the Democrats were crying about this in 2005, about confirming justices, not because the people had a problem with them, but because the DEMS had a problem with them.
Then, they cried and whined about using the nuclear option. Yet, now they want to do it, to impose some crap that the American people don't want.
That is just plain ridiculous and will lead to the Dems getting their clocks cleaned this November. Then, they'll look all dumbfounded wondering why they got beat.
And, I guarantee you, when the Dems are in the minority and the GOP wants to pass something that the people want but the Dems don't want, they'll go for the filibuster and WHINE LIKE BABIES at the very hint of a nuclear option.
So both parties whine like babies when the other uses this to pass legislation. wow who would have thought ::)
It's funny how you meltdown with the republicans though as if the only thing you have is the party line that you must toe every day.
-
Just like shootfighter, you keep wanting one sided reform. Let's drop the pretense that juries award huge damages for minor shit that was beyond a doctors control. That may happen once in a blue moon, but in reality, the doctors have to fuck up pretty significantly. Clean your own profession up and go after the fuck-ups with a vengeance.
You don't want to show interest and care with a patient because you're pissed off at the insurance company, then don't treat the patient.
I'm not talking about cases where doctors make egregious errors or one-sided reform. Good reform would at least keep healthcare affordable on both sides. Without reducing costs people will lose the ability to deliver care. I'm not just talking about malpractice but health insurance reform as well.
Even if your idea of healthcare only includes non-profit hospitals with doctor employees it's still not sustainable. One of the reasons is simply because hospitals pay all the malpractice on doctor employees*. Also, they're on the hook for a percentage of malpractice insurance for whatever specialists or people with admission privileges pay depending upon whatever split is negotiated. On top of that hospitals will have pay for tail coverage whenever someone leaves or retires.
Being pissed off at insurance companies or not caring about patients isn't at issue. Do the math before making statements like that. It's painfully simple: Payment goes down + costs go up = shorter visits. It ain't rocket science to figure out a point comes where delivering healthcare is impossible. :)
*The truly foolish are free to carry additional insurance.
-
Being pissed off at insurance companies or not caring about patients isn't at issue. Do the math before making statements like that. It's painfully simple: Payment goes down + costs go up = shorter visits. It ain't rocket science to figure out a point comes where delivering healthcare is impossible. :)
I didn't make the statement - you made it:
Let's face it, you can't "... at least show some interest and care regarding the patient.." when insurance companies have been cutting reimbursements while costs of doing business keep going up.
Secondly, you're just flat out misleading. Only the government has cut reimbursements. Private insurance reimbursements have increased along with my co-pay which has gone from $10/$15 (general/specialist) to $25/$50. Increased costs are true with healthcare inflation significantly out-stripping regular inflation. And physicians are just as culpable as everybody else in contributing to those soaring costs.
The math is only simple because you want it to be. Instead of getting your asses in gear, putting inflation in check, and getting costs down, your response is to treat more people in less time. And when it comes to a persons health, that's about the dumbest solution around.
-
I didn't make the statement - you made it:
Secondly, you're just flat out misleading. Only the government has cut reimbursements. Private insurance reimbursements have increased along with my co-pay which has gone from $10/$15 (general/specialist) to $25/$50. Increased costs are true with healthcare inflation significantly out-stripping regular inflation. And physicians are just as culpable as everybody else in contributing to those soaring costs.
The math is only simple because you want it to be. Instead of getting your asses in gear, putting inflation in check, and getting costs down, your response is to treat more people in less time. And when it comes to a persons health, that's about the dumbest solution around.
The gov adjusted medicare reimbursements. Some up, some down.
Blue cross blue shield has been cutting/adjusting like other companies. Don't even get me going on capitated fees.
We can't control inflation. Treating more people is the only way to keep things going. Sadly, it is just that simple.
Lastly.... healthcare is a commodity, not a right. You don't have a right to whatever expertise the amount of time it takes someone to become a doctor. Just like I can't walk into a garage and claim the mechanic should fix our car for free.
-
The gov adjusted medicare reimbursements. Some up, some down.
Blue cross blue shield has been cutting/adjusting like other companies. Don't even get me going on capitated fees.
We can't control inflation. Treating more people is the only way to keep things going. Sadly, it is just that simple.
Lastly.... healthcare is a commodity, not a right. You don't have a right to whatever expertise the amount of time it takes someone to become a doctor. Just like I can't walk into a garage and claim the mechanic should fix our car for free.
Exactly. Everyone expects doctors to work for free not realizing the huge overhead they have and screaming about rights, fairness etc.
-
Exactly. Everyone expects doctors to work for free not realizing the huge overhead they have and screaming about rights, fairness etc.
I'm guessing they all go to work for free. :)
-
I'm guessing they all go to work for free. :)
Yeah, I want to see you call a plumber for free when the main line in the house breaks!
Yet people expect doctors to do the same thing when their main line fails.
Health Care is not a right, its a service. If people took better care of themselves we wouldnt have people screaming like idiots for free everything.
-
Blue cross blue shield has been cutting/adjusting like other companies. Don't even get me going on capitated fees.
I don't have reimbursement rates for BC/BS nor do I know your state. But, I have them for my HMO and they've all gone up. In fact they've gone up every year since 2003 with a huge explosion in 2008.
We can't control inflation. Treating more people is the only way to keep things going. Sadly, it is just that simple.
Bullshit. Year after year higher than average wage increases in the industry are directly attributable to the soaring inflation.
Lastly.... healthcare is a commodity, not a right. You don't have a right to whatever expertise the amount of time it takes someone to become a doctor. Just like I can't walk into a garage and claim the mechanic should fix our car for free.
Neither here nor there. I never claimed such and don't believe that healthcare is a right. It's just your attempt to spin. Are you an actual physician? Do you think you don't need patients or something? Like it or not, you are going to have to work with people to get costs down. You may only WANT to try and treat more in less time, but at some point, you will hit a limit and be forced to work within the confines of what people can pay.
-
Yeah, I want to see you call a plumber for free when the main line in the house breaks!
Yet people expect doctors to do the same thing when their main line fails.
Health Care is not a right, its a service. If people took better care of themselves we wouldnt have people screaming like idiots for free everything.
Stop being a douche. You know well that I don't think it's a right. Nevertheless, at some point, they will have to work within the confines of what people can pay. The inflation in healthcare cannot continue to outstrip regular inflation.
-
Stop being a douche. You know well that I don't think it's a right. Nevertheless, at some point, they will have to work within the confines of what people can pay. The inflation in healthcare cannot continue to outstrip regular inflation.
I wasnt referring to you Skip and I agree 100%, but guess what, the price inflation is also a tax issue and third party payment issue since people dont really pay for what they use, and pay for the stuff they dont use.
Take away the health care monopoly, give the healh money for premiuims to consumers instead of it being employment based, give individuals the tax deduction, and there will be far more competition and downward price forces.
-
I wasnt referring to you Skip and I agree 100%, but guess what, the price inflation is also a tax issue and third party payment issue since people dont really pay for what they use, and pay for the stuff they dont use.
Take away the health care monopoly, give the healh money for premiuims to consumers instead of it being employment based, give individuals the tax deduction, and there will be far more competition and downward price forces.
I couldn't agree more. However, where I take issue with Shootfighter and Kaje is when they act as though they aren't part of the problem and everything else like malpractice reform is the end all be all. Physicians can accept their responsibility in this mess just as consumers, corporations, and the government can.
-
I couldn't agree more. However, where I take issue with Shootfighter and Kaje is when they act as though they aren't part of the problem and everything else like malpractice reform is the end all be all. Physicians can accept their responsibility in this mess just as consumers, corporations, and the government can.
Here is the issue though, they dont get paid what they bill and often only get paid a fraction of the bill. Also, increasing HIPPA compliance laws, mandates, etc, all add to overhead and that has to be met somewhere, whether its increased billing and upcoding or seeing more patients.
I'm not defending it, i just also know that there are often many forces at work other than the doc himself.
-
I couldn't agree more. However, where I take issue with Shootfighter and Kaje is when they act as though they aren't part of the problem and everything else like malpractice reform is the end all be all. Physicians can accept their responsibility in this mess just as consumers, corporations, and the government can.
Doctors are a part of the problem because, LOL! My point is that malpractice/tort reform will make delivering healthcare more affordable to individual practices. It's not the only cost that goes way up before going down some but it needs to be legitimately addressed at some point.
Unfortunately, the people in charge of fixing this mess are trial lawyers, career politicians or owned by lobbyists. :) Doing something real, affordable, and sustainable would require changing our entire political system. By "mess" I mean this whole damn thing. :)
-
Doctors are a part of the problem because, LOL! My point is that malpractice/tort reform will make delivering healthcare more affordable to individual practices. It's not the only cost that goes way up before going down some but it needs to be legitimately addressed at some point.
Unfortunately, the people in charge of fixing this mess are trial lawyers, career politicians or owned by lobbyists. :) Doing something real, affordable, and sustainable would require changing our entire political system. By "mess" I mean this whole damn thing. :)
Until I opened my own business, 8 years ago, I thought I knew alot. Until you actually run a business and understand a/p. a/r. fixed overhead, etc, most people really dont understand how difficult it really is.
My E/O insurance always goes up despite having no claims, taxes go up, etc etc, so I have two choices, increase my billing rate or decrease expenses.
Those are not always easy to do in a bad economic environment like we have and many docs face the same thing.
-
Skip, you are obviously not directly involved in the healthcare industry like Kaje and I.
Doctors, nurses and hospitals make mistakes, of course and there is a continue struggle to lessen these. However, medicine is complicated and not exact, there will always be mistakes and grievances. There are also a % of people that you'll never satisfy or have horrible outcomes regardless and want to sue.
I support lawsuits that go after clear cases of negligence. Remember, lawyers usually sue multiple defendants, it's not just you and your doctor. Many of you just think of jury trials, there are tons of settlements that occur and significantly add to the cost of everything (that trickles down). Again, cases of negligence should be punished but we must do everything to prevent junk claims and excessive legal costs because it burdens the system, and the people end up paying, just like the docs.
Reimbursement is not going up the last couple yrs and is certainly outpaced by the rate of overhead increases and mandates. FP wages have been stagnant for years. This is specifically why more private doctors are folding into large hospital systems, they can't continue to afford to run their own practice, it's not debatable, it's happening. This is also why hospitals have forced docs to see too many patients per day, which does decrease care and increase mistakes. The docs are (in general) pussies compared to the hospital administrators who control them. So, we need to lower healthcare costs and patients need to stand up with the docs to the big hospital systems pushing everything to fast for profit.
Again, why would politicians (who are predominantly lawyers) want to enact real malpractice reform? Many receive campaign contributions from trial lawyer organizations and they come from that school.
Socialized health systems DO NOT have a legal malpractice system like ours for a reason....too expensive.
-
TA don't you get it? Socialized Medicine works for members of Congress, Medicare recipients and douchebags like headgiver6. Everyone else must fend for themselves.
Hope this helps.
-
Skip, you are obviously not directly involved in the healthcare industry like Kaje and I.
Doctors, nurses and hospitals make mistakes, of course and there is a continue struggle to lessen these. However, medicine is complicated and not exact, there will always be mistakes and grievances. There are also a % of people that you'll never satisfy or have horrible outcomes regardless and want to sue.
I support lawsuits that go after clear cases of negligence. Remember, lawyers usually sue multiple defendants, it's not just you and your doctor. Many of you just think of jury trials, there are tons of settlements that occur and significantly add to the cost of everything (that trickles down). Again, cases of negligence should be punished but we must do everything to prevent junk claims and excessive legal costs because it burdens the system, and the people end up paying, just like the docs.
Reimbursement is not going up the last couple yrs and is certainly outpaced by the rate of overhead increases and mandates. FP wages have been stagnant for years. This is specifically why more private doctors are folding into large hospital systems, they can't continue to afford to run their own practice, it's not debatable, it's happening. This is also why hospitals have forced docs to see too many patients per day, which does decrease care and increase mistakes. The docs are (in general) pussies compared to the hospital administrators who control them. So, we need to lower healthcare costs and patients need to stand up with the docs to the big hospital systems pushing everything to fast for profit.
Again, why would politicians (who are predominantly lawyers) want to enact real malpractice reform? Many receive campaign contributions from trial lawyer organizations and they come from that school.
Socialized health systems DO NOT have a legal malpractice system like ours for a reason....too expensive.
Socialized medicine will lead to more insured, not necessarily better or increased care. It's as if people have a disconnect or feel insurance equals care.
One of my friends sold his family practice 10 plus years ago. Same amount of visits one year but the office made $125K less, after doing the math he sold to a hospital. The office is booked solid and cannot accept new patients. By "booked solid" I specifically mean the hospital schedules appointments up to two hours before he arrives on some days so there's never a break in case of a missed or late appointment.
-
I split my time between my family practice (3 days/wk) and as the director of an employee health clinic for a federal system. I never realized how tough it was to run a family practice and how much overhead there really was between business expenses, employees, licencing, mandates, taxes, equipment, etc.
Additionally, the taxes taken from the company is insane. I pay approx 38-40% taxation on the business. So, for me to make an extra $1000, it costs the practice almost $1400. More cost with every employee and all the taxation added on from the state, local and federal gov...including unemployment tax, BWC, and child & family services, among others. I couldn't survive on my family practice alone. One good thing is I schedule 15 min for most visits but 30 min for physicals and complex patients...so patients like it and there are less mistakes (plus I have a wonderful, competent staff), however, I could never make a full salary with that schedule. Just not enough $ coming in for all the expenses.
All of you guys arguing for more services and more taxes, please...please try to run a small business.
-
I split my time between my family practice (3 days/wk) and as the director of an employee health clinic for a federal system. I never realized how tough it was to run a family practice and how much overhead there really was between business expenses, employees, licencing, mandates, taxes, equipment, etc.
Additionally, the taxes taken from the company is insane. I pay approx 38-40% taxation on the business. So, for me to make an extra $1000, it costs the practice almost $1400. More cost with every employee and all the taxation added on from the state, local and federal gov...including unemployment tax, BWC, and child & family services, among others. I couldn't survive on my family practice alone. One good thing is I schedule 15 min for most visits but 30 min for physicals and complex patients...so patients like it and there are less mistakes (plus I have a wonderful, competent staff), however, I could never make a full salary with that schedule. Just not enough $ coming in for all the expenses.
All of you guys arguing for more services and more taxes, please...please try to run a small business.
I'm probably going to do medicine in a community clinic.
-
Skip, you are obviously not directly involved in the healthcare industry like Kaje and I.
Doctors, nurses and hospitals make mistakes, of course and there is a continue struggle to lessen these. However, medicine is complicated and not exact, there will always be mistakes and grievances. There are also a % of people that you'll never satisfy or have horrible outcomes regardless and want to sue.
I support lawsuits that go after clear cases of negligence. Remember, lawyers usually sue multiple defendants, it's not just you and your doctor. Many of you just think of jury trials, there are tons of settlements that occur and significantly add to the cost of everything (that trickles down). Again, cases of negligence should be punished but we must do everything to prevent junk claims and excessive legal costs because it burdens the system, and the people end up paying, just like the docs.
Reimbursement is not going up the last couple yrs and is certainly outpaced by the rate of overhead increases and mandates. FP wages have been stagnant for years. This is specifically why more private doctors are folding into large hospital systems, they can't continue to afford to run their own practice, it's not debatable, it's happening. This is also why hospitals have forced docs to see too many patients per day, which does decrease care and increase mistakes. The docs are (in general) pussies compared to the hospital administrators who control them. So, we need to lower healthcare costs and patients need to stand up with the docs to the big hospital systems pushing everything to fast for profit.
Again, why would politicians (who are predominantly lawyers) want to enact real malpractice reform? Many receive campaign contributions from trial lawyer organizations and they come from that school.
Socialized health systems DO NOT have a legal malpractice system like ours for a reason....too expensive.
I used to work for an insurance company dealing with injured workers and I've seen first hand the abuses of insurance companies as well as billing by physicians.
Here's a tidbit for anybody out there who may not know. It used to be in my state that if a physician performed a surgery on a person, let's say to correct a herniated disc and while performing the procedure the surgeon came across another problem, let's say another herniated disc, the doctor would fix the 2nd problem and instead of adding a fair mark-up for that extra effort, they would charge as though a WHOLE NEW SURGERY HAD BEEN PERFORMED! It was called stacking.
And I don't even want to get started on the sheer volume of double billing that goes on. Insurance companies actually have to pay an army of employees just to keep all of that in check.
My point remains the same. Clean up your own profession if you want to endlessly cry about the malpractice reform. I support malpractice reform and I think it's an aberration that people should be able to sue you for some of the nonsense. And I want the best minds in the field, so I want you all well paid. But, you're going to have to survive within what the market can bear, and right now healthcare is just crushing people.
But, I digress. I'm sure you and Kaje are near the poverty level and his 3 children are surely close to starvation at this point. Next month you'll both be down at the welfare clinic as Uncle Sam forecloses on your businesses.
-
I used to work for an insurance company dealing with injured workers and I've seen first hand the abuses of insurance companies as well as billing by physicians.
Here's a tidbit for anybody out there who may not know. It used to be in my state that if a physician performed a surgery on a person, let's say to correct a herniated disc and while performing the procedure the surgeon came across another problem, let's say another herniated disc, the doctor would fix the 2nd problem and instead of adding a fair mark-up for that extra effort, they would charge as though a WHOLE NEW SURGERY HAD BEEN PERFORMED! It was called stacking.
And I don't even want to get started on the sheer volume of double billing that goes on. Insurance companies actually have to pay an army of employees just to keep all of that in check.
My point remains the same. Clean up your own profession if you want to endlessly cry about the malpractice reform. I support malpractice reform and I think it's an aberration that people should be able to sue you for some of the nonsense. And I want the best minds in the field, so I want you all well paid. But, you're going to have to survive within what the market can bear, and right now healthcare is just crushing people.
But, I digress. I'm sure you and Kaje are near the poverty level and his 3 children are surely close to starvation at this point. Next month you'll both be down at the welfare clinic as Uncle Sam forecloses on your businesses.
Not being an ass here but..... you dorealize reopening a patient presents additional risk. "Stacking" for billing purposes is (or should be illegal) but an entire second surgery would put patients in harm's way. From an ethics perspective, many would say "Close the patient up and let them opt and give informed consent for the second surgery" so autonomy is kept intact but in a surgical scenario it hard to justify the additional risk.
-
Not being an ass here but..... you dorealize reopening a patient presents additional risk. "Stacking" for billing purposes is (or should be illegal) but an entire second surgery would put patients in harm's way. From an ethics perspective, many would say "Close the patient up and let them opt and give informed consent for the second surgery" so autonomy is kept intact but in a surgical scenario it hard to justify the additional risk.
So where do we disagree? I understand reopening the patient is bad. In fact I know from my dealing with worker comp injuries that physicians will go out of their way not to operate. The stacking was the issue and it was abusive.
As for the ethics, that was already determined by the surgeon. He or she made that decision and I'm sure it was a tough one to make. But, once made, it doesn't justify the stacking.
-
So where do we disagree? I understand reopening the patient is bad. In fact I know from my dealing with worker comp injuries that physicians will go out of their way not to operate. The stacking was the issue and it was abusive.
As for the ethics, that was already determined by the surgeon. He or she made that decision and I'm sure it was a tough one to make. But, once made, it doesn't justify the stacking.
It doesn't justify "stacking" but someone shouldn't get a free surgical procedure because they're already open, LOL! I'm guessing you specifically mean people charging for two separate procedures in cases like that. They should get paid for the extra work/risk but not double bill. Money from insurance companies isn't free.
-
It doesn't justify "stacking" but someone shouldn't get a free surgical procedure because they're already open, LOL! I'm guessing you specifically mean people charging for two separate procedures in cases like that. They should get paid for the extra work/risk but not double bill. Money from insurance companies isn't free.
Who the hell said anything about free?
Here's a tidbit for anybody out there who may not know. It used to be in my state that if a physician performed a surgery on a person, let's say to correct a herniated disc and while performing the procedure the surgeon came across another problem, let's say another herniated disc, the doctor would fix the 2nd problem and instead of adding a fair mark-up for that extra effort, they would charge as though a WHOLE NEW SURGERY HAD BEEN PERFORMED! It was called stacking.
Read.
THINK.
Post.
Repeat.
"It's really that simple."
-kaje, circa 2010
-
Interesting. I am not in a surgical field so don't have any experience with that. I speak specifically from a family practice perspective. I'm sure there are lots of abuses, but I think many of those come from the hospital systems now and not the doctor. As an example, the doctors at the cleveland clinic may assign a code for their visit but the extra charges tacked on come from the billing departments and/or auditors, particularly when procedures and surgeries are done. It's a lot more difficult to overcharge in family practice, we basically take what we are given by regular E&M code reimbursements, it's not much. I am reimbursed $55-59 for a typical (99213) follow up visit.
Kaje & I may not be in financial hardship now but we did more than our share of volunteer and non-paid work throughout training and in practice, that I can assure you. We also basically waited 8-12 yrs later than our counterparts to make significant $ and paid debts back for years, so I feel absolutely no regret in being about to make a good wage now (still well under Obama's $200K/yr tax penalties).
Kaje, what kind of doc are you? Good discussion!
-
Good, I think you should be well paid. I don't want some flunky jackoff evaluating my family or I when we need help. That's not the point, it was just Kaje attempting to deflect.
-
Good, I think you should be well paid. I don't want some flunky jackoff evaluating my family or I when we need help. That's not the point, it was just Kaje attempting to deflect.
Skip, I'm a total geek and will probably end up working someplace for nothing. I love seeing patients and will still be happy as the proverbial pig in shit.