He's a lawyer, why would he limit how much him and one of his largest group of donors would be allowed to make?
To quote Rush, "i hope he fails". His plan will spell nothing BUT chaos for our system.
President Obama does not consider the consequences of his plans. His proposal for "health care reform" does not address the very core of the "problem". There won't be health care reform without placing limits on malpractice awards. The so called health care crisis is actualy a legal crisis. Because of the threat of malpractice, every doctor views their patients as potential plaintiffs. When president Obama socializes medicine, where will our doctor's come from? Will President Obama subsidize the education of doctors? Why would the best and the brightest want to sacrifice 20 of the best years of their lives,and invest hundreds of thousands of dollars for the "privelege" of working under Obama's health care system where your earning potential is severely limited and lawyers are watching your every move, ready to sue. Why would anyone want to become a doctor? In my opinion, "health care reform" starts with limiting malpractice awards.
He's a lawyer, why would he limit how much him and one of his largest group of donors would be allowed to make?
To quote Rush, "i hope he fails". His plan will spell nothing BUT chaos for our system.
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
"And circle gets the square."
Another person who doesn't understand what 'socialized medicine' is. But I agree with you that malpractice awards should be limited.
The concept of pooling funds to take care of catastrophic cases is, really, what insurance actually _is_, and I like the idea.
I work for a major insurance company, and feel that a single-payer system makes a lot more sense than what we currently have. If the single-payer is the govt, that's fine with me. The doctors will still work for themselves, after all - they'll just have to learn one drug formulary, one billing process, etc. and save on administrative work.
And they'll have to charge only what the govt wants and only what the govt want to perscribe. How can we have monopoly laws on the books, but let the govt be the largest monopoly?
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
Of course, I doubt there will be any opposing viewpoints:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...n-june-24.html
Really? Med-mal is the problem? Get real. I cannot remember a time where a doctor treated me like a "potential plaintiff." And I've dealt with a decent amount doctors in my time.
But whatevs, speaking as someone who has worked in the insurance industry for some time, I think your post is nothing but cliched and tired drivel. Cost-control jingoism and nothing more. I know the tune. I like to think of it as "The Actuarial Shuffle in B-fail." Tort reform, as in real positive change, has nothing to with the position.
Full Disclosure: I make a decent living in a more civil realm of the insurance song and dance.
Last edited by raoul duke; June 16th, 2009 at 10:13 PM.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
You missed a point or assumed one, I guess. Where did I state or imply that "lawsuits and the threat [there]of" do not affect insurance rates and premiums? I was talking about not being treated as a "plaintiff" by my doctor. Regardless, as a health care cost, med-mal premiums and settlements are not our main problem.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
[QUOTE=raoul duke;505092]as "The Actuarial Shuffle in B-fail." Tort reform, as in real positive change, has nothing to with the position.
QUOTE]
what was the position?
mine is that real health care reform as it applies to cost control {a biggie}
cannot be entertained without malpractice protection and cap.
Medical malpractice is not the bogeyman. I dare anyone to prove me wrong with something more than selected anecdotes and industry disseminated bullet points. Give us some hard evidence or, perhaps, STFU.
One beautiful thing about having a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations is that every disaster is measured in terms of economic loss. It's sort of like getting your arm sheared off in a car accident and thinking, "Damn, now it'll take longer to fold the laundry" as blood spurts from your arteries. - The Rude Pundit
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)