ObamaCare and me By Zane F Pollard, MD

[tyflier]

The only problem is that this isn't the ONLY thing in the bill. There is a lot of unnecessary fat in the bill. The biggest worry I have (and I think danielle is expressing but I don't want to be presumptuous) is that the government is going to try and overextend itself AGAIN and end up draining money. If all they were trying to do is create a committee in Congress that is responsible for trying to regulate the insurance companies then that would be GREAT! But, that's not what they want to do. Congress always wants more because, lets face it, elected officials are just as if not more greedy and corrupt than the big business that everybody hates... THAT'S where the concern comes from IMO.

There still sn't a public option...at least not the last time I listened to CNN Radio. I admit that was a few days ago, but...

Part of the problem is people trying to "slip in" riders. Part of the problem is Politicians fighting the bill out of habit. Part of the problem is Democrats trying to push the bill through to meet an imaginary deadline. Part of the problem is that everyone in this country is scared to death of what is going to happen with our economy, so we're all holding on to anything we can that is concrete and tangible to avoid being lost in the netherland of Big Finance. Part of the problem is that things just suck right now...

There are a LOT of problems...and very few solutions.

So what would you propose? Keep things the way they are and continue digging this giant hole until we maybe strike gold...or reach China? Let things ride, and see what happens? Quit? Give up and go home with our toys, lock ourselves in our basements and wait for the raiding parties to come and ransack our domeciles? None of those are a realistic option...are they?

Realistically, this country is in one of the worst financial downturns we have seen since the Great Depression. There is no easy way out. Wall Street needs a complete overhaul. Insurance needs a complete overhaul. The economy needs a poking from a cattleprod. And our citizens are bickering back and forth amongst themselves about the tiny little things that really, in the grand scheme, don't matter...like a cop that gets pissed and chooses bad wording. Or an under-educated lady blurting out ridiculous statements at Town Hall meetings. While our attentions are focused on these issues, under the guise that they are important, our country continues to dip further and further below the International Poverty Line.

It doesn't help that one group is screaming about fascism everytime a change is proposed, while the other group clings to any hope they can get, whether it makes sense or not.

The reality is...something's got to give. Something's got to change. Something needs to be carefully reconsidered and changed or else we're all going to hell in a handbasket, and really doesn't matter whose driving...

 

[Pruddock]

There still sn't a public option...at least not the last time I listened to CNN Radio. I admit that was a few days ago, but...

Part of the problem is people trying to "slip in" riders. Part of the problem is Politicians fighting the bill out of habit. Part of the problem is Democrats trying to push the bill through to meet an imaginary deadline. Part of the problem is that everyone in this country is scared to death of what is going to happen with our economy, so we're all holding on to anything we can that is concrete and tangible to avoid being lost in the netherland of Big Finance. Part of the problem is that things just suck right now...

There are a LOT of problems...and very few solutions.

So what would you propose? Keep things the way they are and continue digging this giant hole until we maybe strike gold...or reach China? Let things ride, and see what happens? Quit? Give up and go home with our toys, lock ourselves in our basements and wait for the raiding parties to come and ransack our domeciles? None of those are a realistic option...are they?

Realistically, this country is in one of the worst financial downturns we have seen since the Great Depression. There is no easy way out. Wall Street needs a complete overhaul. Insurance needs a complete overhaul. The economy needs a poking from a cattleprod. And our citizens are bickering back and forth amongst themselves about the tiny little things that really, in the grand scheme, don't matter...like a cop that gets pissed and chooses bad wording. Or an under-educated lady blurting out ridiculous statements at Town Hall meetings. While our attentions are focused on these issues, under the guise that they are important, our country continues to dip further and further below the International Poverty Line.

It doesn't help that one group is screaming about fascism everytime a change is proposed, while the other group clings to any hope they can get, whether it makes sense or not.

The reality is...something's got to give. Something's got to change. Something needs to be carefully reconsidered and changed or else we're all going to hell in a handbasket, and really doesn't matter whose driving...

The best thing to do would probably to be dropping all of the crap being debated right now and moving on the few points that have been agreed on (i.e. tort and insurance claims reform). I'd be all for that and it shouldn't (i use this term delicately here) cost the American taxpayers much. It's a good place to start and get a foothold to see if government intervention helps before deciding wholeheartedly that it is the ultimate solution. The government doesn't test waters anymore and I think that is what has gotten us into so much debt (something that concerns me much more than our current healthcare debate).

 

[tyflier]

The best thing to do would probably to be dropping all of the crap being debated right now and moving on the few points that have been agreed on (i.e. tort and insurance claims reform). I'd be all for that and it shouldn't (i use this term delicately here) cost the American taxpayers much. It's a good place to start and get a foothold to see if government intervention helps before deciding wholeheartedly that it is the ultimate solution. The government doesn't test waters anymore and I think that is what has gotten us into so much debt (something that concerns me much more than our current healthcare debate).

Yea...our politicians have become too powerful because We, The People, don't force them to keep in check anymore. We, The People, have allowed lobbyists, big business, and Politicians to decide everything for us, to "protect" us, and to make things work. I think We, The People have forgotten that THEY are people, too...fallible, biased, greedy, and corrupt.

I don't know. Like I said, I am not and have never been a full supporter of a Public Option. I don't know enough about any proposed "public option" to either fully support or fully abhor such a thing. I am a FULL supporter of reform, change, and regulations. But in order for that to happen, we need to start at the beginning, and get the politicians out of the pockets of Big Business and Bigger Lobbies, and put them back where they belong,...squarely under the thumb of the American People...

 

[danielle]

Can I borrow your crystal ball? Football season is coming up, and darn it, since your crystal ball is so accurate at predicting precisely how, when, and why everything is giong to work, maybe TandJ and myself can make some money the good old fashioned way...gambling.

As for the part I put in boldface...

Gee...wouldn't that be medical reform? Everything I marked in bold is everything that is supposed to be part of the new bill. So everything you think *should* be done is already part of the consideration for the new bill. Yet here you sit, adamant that it won't work, will cost a fortune to fail, and blablabla...

Yea...regulate the companies. That's priority one (IMO). Both in the medical insurance industry AND on Wall Street. And that's what you're arguing against this whole time...oke:

I have never said no health care reform as a matter of fact I keep reiterating our system needs reform. I also never said no government regulation just not the large scope of regulation the government is trying to pull. If your going to argue my ideas you at least have to get them right Chris.

The government should not think they can define medical necessity, but punishing providers or insurnce companies misusing these terms to provide less care or more care than needed is something I support.

The government promising adequate care funded by the government i.e our tax dollars is something I don't support because limited funds will provide limited care and I don't support that

You don't need a crystal ball to look up what the government brings in on federal taxes a year and spening on current programs- this is simple subtraction a 6 year old could do. The government nets x amount of dollars a year and spends x amount of dollars a year. Whats left can not insure our population so not only will the amount of care have MANY limits, but they will have to take from currnt programs to provide additional funds even after raising our taxes. Math my friend not psychic ability

 

[tyflier]

I have never said no health care reform as a matter of fact I keep reiterating our system needs reform. I also never said no government regulation just not the large scope of regulation the government is trying to pull. If your going to argue my ideas you at least have to get them right Chris.

The government should not think they can define medical necessity, but punishing providers or insurnce companies misusing these terms to provide less care or more care than needed is something I support.

The government promising adequate care funded by the government i.e our tax dollars is something I don't support because limited funds will provide limited care and I don't support that

You don't need a crystal ball to look up what the government brings in on federal taxes a year and spening on current programs- this is simple subtraction a 6 year old could do. The government nets x amount of dollars a year and spends x amount of dollars a year. Whats left can not insure our population so not only will the amount of care have MANY limits, but they will have to take from currnt programs to provide additional funds even after raising our taxes. Math my friend not psychic ability

Uhh...yea...math based entirely on unfounded assumptions because frankly...you have no idea how it will work, what will be changed, or what course of action is deemed "necessary".

Math is no good when your numbers are achieved using a crystal ball.

You don't know what is proposed. You don't know what has been accepted. You don't know what will be debated. You dno't know what the final bill will entail. You don't know what it will cost. You don't know where the money wil come from. In fact...the only thing yuo DO know is how to add made up numbers. That's the whole point of "change"...it makes things different. Different than what we have had in the past. Different than what we have currently. Different than what we are used to. Different as in not the same. So using old numbers to predict future outcomes is, quite simply, very much like using a crystal ball.

You could at least wait to read a final proposal before making al these assumptions, couldn't you?

The changes I have seen you say were necessary had nothing to do with reformation of curent legislation. What I have seen you looking for is a change in the way current insurance companies pay, the way current medical beauracracies recieve payment, and the way insured persons recieve care. That's not reformation. Your "solutions" will do nothing but put more money in the pockets of more insurance companies.

BTW...do you know why insurance companies need to record a profit? Because they are a publicly traded commodity. This means they are required by law to generate a profit, every year, in order to provide a return for their investors. In order to do this, they need to market, advertise, and cut costs. Where do you think the billions of dollars a year to pay for advertising executives, marketing ploys, and CEO bonuses comes from? It comes from the monthly payments that get made. If, by chance, the insurance companies actually paid out what they should pay out in medical claims, they would not be able to report a profit. So they deny claims to avoid payments and make a profit.

All of this would change drastically if insurance was no longer a "for profit" industry...

 

[danielle]

Yes Chris some of those things may change, but instead this bill will make our governments pockets fatter and disrupt the flow of money into the FREE market which is never good for a capitalistic economy that depends on this flow for economic stability.

I have read and reread the proposed bill and if you had you may change your tune. No its not the final bill, no everything in it now won't remain, but rest assured the one thing that is absolute is taxes will be increased to fund this bill meaning you, me, and everyone else here can look forward to bringing home less even if we choose to keep our private plans. So I will have my paychck punished whether I use this care or not because you can not tax individuals based on useage and only on income.

Now lets talk about math again knowing taxes will rise and paychecks will not accordingly. I make x amount of dollars and taxes go up by x percent. I bring home less and still pay my private insurance premiums because I have to or else except government care. You say I don't know that government run health programs are bad- do you know they are good what am I missing? Do you agree with how our government runs medicare, medicaid, and the va health plans now? I don't and neither do the majority of Americans receiving this care hence the need for medicare reform. However if you think the government runs these programs so efficiently explain why. If you don't think they do a great job explain why you want similar care.

All you can say to me is I pull this garbage outta my tush, but where do you pull yours from?oke:

 

[tyflier]

Yes Chris some of those things may change, but instead this bill will make our governments pockets fatter and disrupt the flow of money into the FREE market which is never good for a capitalistic economy that depends on this flow for economic stability.

I have read and reread the proposed bill and if you had you may change your tune. No its not the final bill, no everything in it now won't remain, but rest assured the one thing that is absolute is taxes will be increased to fund this bill meaning you, me, and everyone else here can look forward to bringing home less even if we choose to keep our private plans. So I will have my paychck punished whether I use this care or not because you can not tax individuals based on useage and only on income.

Now lets talk about math again knowing taxes will rise and paychecks will not accordingly. I make x amount of dollars and taxes go up by x percent. I bring home less and still pay my private insurance premiums because I have to or else except government care. You say I don't know that government run health programs are bad- do you know they are good what am I missing? Do you agree with how our government runs medicare, medicaid, and the va health plans now? I don't and neither do the majority of Americans receiving this care hence the need for medicare reform. However if you think the government runs these programs so efficiently explain why. If you don't think they do a great job explain why you want similar care.

All you can say to me is I pull this garbage outta my tush, but where do you pull yours from?oke:

Where do I pull what from? I haven't made any predictions. I haven't made any guesses. I haven't quoted any costs, or plans, or premiums, or tax hikes. I haven't posted any garbage.

Ultimately...this country is several trillion dollars in debt. Taxes are going up, for one reason or another. You should probably get used to that because we still have a failing educational system and 2 wars to pay for.

And I have NEVER said that I think the government taking over insurance would be the best option. I said insurance being not-for-profit would drastically reducwe the cost of operations for an insurance company.

So what "garbage" are you asking me to cite sources for? I would love to but...I haven't made any predictions or statements of authority on how, what, why or when anything is going to work...

 

[TandJ]

Chris mentioned..

Can I borrow your crystal ball? Football season is coming up, and darn it, since your crystal ball is so accurate at predicting precisely how, when, and why everything is giong to work, maybe TandJ and myself can make some money the good old fashioned way...gambling.

I have a FedEx account, I am more than willing to accept a crystal ball.. Gambling? Ummm.. I do that every day driving back and forth to work..

Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[danielle]

Your idea of not-for profit insurance companies is nice no sarcasm intended there, but with less revenues providers would have to be paid less and while salaries in an insurance company like this would be cheaper overall operating expenses would not. They would still have to pay for the same peoples health care and assume the same risk they do now, supplies, postage, equipment and other expenses don't disappear either so no real tangible savings will be realized. They would have fewer options to raise working capital because they could not be publically traded unless they privatize part of the sector or take on external partners, or use debt options which is harder to obtain for the not-for profit institution.

With mal-practice insurance as high is it is now asking providers to receive less would drive many out of business leaving fewer people available to give us health care already seen in rural areas now. With fewer options to raise capital these not-for profit insurance companies would have to underwrite fewer policies downsizing, insurance prejudice would grow with them only wanting the healthiest applicants, and it is feasible that more people then opposed to now would go without health care being uninsurable which are some of the reasons we have all kinds of laws regarding these issues in health care

It isn't only the for profit institutions that have to worry about revenues and honestly it is even more important for a company that is not-for profit because conducting business is their main way to raise capital to keep their doors open, diversify, and grow. Look at not-for profit hospitals now- they are typically smaller, offer less acute services, see fewer patients, and generally eventually merge with a public hospital to sustain positive inflows of cash which is exactly what is likely to happen if insurance companies went private.

So yes taxes will go up to pay down our countries debt your right, but driving us further into debt by becoming our countries health care underwriters of the future will only deepen this debt and not help to reduce and stop the financial hemorrhaging occuring now. As long as our country remains in debt fewer monies can be put toward any government funded program including health care so I feel now more than ever a program like this will harm the economy.

I don't know the answer either btw, but true calculated reform should take years not months- our government is pushing this waaaay too fast to be able to furnish a plan that meets the need to provide more people with health care, increase quality, and
contain costs. Its a huge task I wouldn't want to have to take on because any decision is going hurt a portion of our population.

 

[tyflier]

Danielle, I'm not going to debate the details of how it would work, because we simply do not have any reasonable way of crunching numbers that don't exist.

However, it makes a fair amount of sense to me that if every person that currently has insurance continues paying (at a slightly lower rate), and the millions of American that don't have insurance are offered payment schedules that fit their budget, and the insurance companies have nothing to do with that moeny except to stay open and pay medical bills...there wouldn't be this gigantic hole that you are predicting. All of the millions of dollars a year in salaries would now be capped. All of the billions per year spent on advertising, marketing, corporate takeovers, and acquisitions would suddenly become available for...**GASP**...paying people's medical bills. And remember...this is per company.

Now...I'm no math whiz, and I certainly am no medical billing expert. But it seems to me that you can pay for an awful lot of care with a billion dollars a year. Maybe even enough that we wouldn't have several million uninsured Americans running around.

And since when did it become my responsibility to pay for a doctor's malpractice insurance? Let me get this straight...I'm not allowed to ask for help from anyone to pay for MY insurance...but I am fully expected to cover the cost of malpractice insurance? If we had fewer people trying to get rich by suing people for no reason, that cost might go down. Further, if we didn't have doctors making horrible ad deplorable treatment choices, that cost might go down.

Be more strict on what is an acceptable malpractice lawsuit. Be more strict on who is allowed to be a doctor. Be nmore strict on what procedures are, and are not recommended to treat specific cases, and hold doctors [i=]and patients[/i] accountable for recovery. Maybe malpractice insurance costs qwould come down. Maybe not. But still...when did it become MY responsibility to cover THEIR insurance?

 

[danielle]

Yes I agree I hate mal-practice insurance payments and yes you pay for these expenses now. Each state based on the number of lawsuits a year, specific area of medicine, and number of each doctor practicing a similar area of medicine rates the percentage to be added to your bill whether insurance covers this or not. The geographical index is the medical term applied to this expense read up on it its very real. While I never said we should have to help pay for these expenses above the expense is a large part of the cost of care.

The states set this rate not insurance companies or providers btw so unfornately we already pay the burden of sue happy butt heads and I also agree harsher legislation must be brought against the initiator of these law suits and doctors comitting medical torts so again we agree ironically.

I also agree pharmaceutical advertising is digusting and should be outlawed like tobbaco commercials, I agree malpractice could decline under more stringent oversight, and I agree medical marketing on the whole increases the cost of care- so we don't disagree everywhere. I just don't agree a not for profit health care organization can generate the funds to cover our entire populations health care expenses

 

[tyflier]

Yes I agree I hate mal-practice insurance payments and yes you pay for these expenses now. Each state based on the number of lawsuits a year, specific area of medicine, and number of each doctor practicing a similar area of medicine rates the percentage to be added to your bill whether insurance covers this or not. The geographical index is the medical term applied to this expense read up on it its very real. While I never said we should have to help pay for these expenses above the expense is a large part of the cost of care.

The states set this rate not insurance companies or providers btw so unfornately we already pay the burden of sue happy butt heads and I also agree harsher legislation must be brought against the initiator of these law suits and doctors comitting medical torts so again we agree ironically.

I also agree pharmaceutical advertising is digusting and should be outlawed like tobbaco commercials, I agree malpractice could decline under more stringent oversight, and I agree medical marketing on the whole increases the cost of care- so we don't disagree everywhere. I just don't agree a not for profit health care organization can generate the funds to cover our entire populations health care expenses

Really, we don't disagree very much at all, when you strip away the BS, and get right to heart of the matter.

Again...I don't know how it would work, and I don't claim to have a reasonable prediction of the outcome. All I know is that things need to change. And I'm smart enough to know that there are many, many, many other ways to do this than the way we currently have in place. *Most* of the other ways are just as successful as our way, so what have we really got to lose?

 

[Nova_C]

I dug up this thread because two things have popped up in US news that, I think, are pertinent:

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl’s. In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl “dogs” that the company could “get rid of.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/insurance-company-patients-dogs/

The courts have already ruled this as legal - so an insurance company can take your money, but as soon as someone, anyone, with the same company makes a large claim, you can see your coverage simply disappear so that company can avoid paying claims.

"I called Golden Rule and they said that if I would get sterilized, they would then be able to offer insurance to me."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/10/insurance-company-get-sterilized-and-well-cover-you.html

So, if private insurance is okay, that the coverage provided is good and doesn't need to change, what has to happen, exactly, before regulation is needed? Companies are simply cancelling plans that come with a high cost while their profits continue to climb (Guardian, the company that cancelled coverage for Ian Pearl, had seen it's profits double while still covering him). They make exceptions for pregnant women in order to fleece couples wanting children. What is okay about this?

 

[tyflier]

I dug up this thread because two things have popped up in US news that, I think, are pertinent:



http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/15/insurance-company-patients-dogs/

The courts have already ruled this as legal - so an insurance company can take your money, but as soon as someone, anyone, with the same company makes a large claim, you can see your coverage simply disappear so that company can avoid paying claims.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/10/insurance-company-get-sterilized-and-well-cover-you.html

So, if private insurance is okay, that the coverage provided is good and doesn't need to change, what has to happen, exactly, before regulation is needed? Companies are simply cancelling plans that come with a high cost while their profits continue to climb (Guardian, the company that cancelled coverage for Ian Pearl, had seen it's profits double while still covering him). They make exceptions for pregnant women in order to fleece couples wanting children. What is okay about this?

Yea, I heard about this stuff on the radio today.

Can't imagine why some people would like to see some sort of medical insurance reformation legislation. I just can't imagine why...:nope:

 

[KJUN]

Didn't the current administration promise us 120 million flu vaccines by now? Well, they seem to be just a little short - about 109 million short, that is. Hmmmmm, in other words, they only deliver 9% of what they claimed they could. ....and some people wonder why we don't want them running more and more of the "health care industry."

The Obama daughters haven't taken a flu shot yet. Is it because (1) they don't want to use 2 of them since they are in such short supply or (2) they know more about the rumors of increased problems with this particular vaccine and think that it might be OK for YOU to risk it but they are too important to risk it. Both rumors have started circulating. One version looks good and the other version looks bad. I really don't care which version is true since I believe this story dwarfs ANOTHER promise made that his administration couldn't keep. Plus, I'm not supposed to take the flu shot either way, so what do I care?.........lol.

 

[tyflier]

Didn't the current administration promise us 120 million flu vaccines by now? Well, they seem to be just a little short - about 109 million short, that is. Hmmmmm, in other words, they only deliver 9% of what they claimed they could. ....and some people wonder why we don't want them running more and more of the "health care industry." [/
quote]
Suince when did Obama become a research scientist in the world of vaccinations? I'm fairly certain that whatever "promises" the Obama administration made regarding available flu vaccinations was based solely and entirely upon the information provided by the developers of the vaccinations...not the Obama Bible...

The Obama daughters haven't taken a flu shot yet. Is it because (1) they don't want to use 2 of them since they are in such short supply or (2) they know more about the rumors of increased problems with this particular vaccine and think that it might be OK for YOU to risk it but they are too important to risk it. Both rumors have started circulating. One version looks good and the other version looks bad. I really don't care which version is true since I believe this story dwarfs ANOTHER promise made that his administration couldn't keep. Plus, I'm not supposed to take the flu shot either way, so what do I care?.........lol.

Since when do the medical records of an individual's children become record for public comment? My daughter hasn't gotten the flu vaccine yet, either. Care to speculate on why that might be?

Frankly, I think this post is just one more pathetic attempt to "rile the masses" against Obama.

Let's look at it quite simply...

#1--The president doesn't have a whole lot of say wbout when and how much vaccine can be made and provided. They recieve information from the developers and pass it on to the citizens. If the developers, for whatever reason, cannot provide the amounts specified...whose fault is that? Certainly not Barack Obama's...

#2-There is no conspiracy. Nobody is trying to kill you with vaccinations. Nobody is trying to enslave you for the New World Order. Nobody is trying to control you, your money, and your thoughts. It's simply not happening... They tried for the previous 8 years and failed, so they gave up. Feel better?

 

[tyflier]

Didn't the current administration promise us 120 million flu vaccines by now? Well, they seem to be just a little short - about 109 million short, that is. Hmmmmm, in other words, they only deliver 9% of what they claimed they could. ....and some people wonder why we don't want them running more and more of the "health care industry."

The Obama daughters haven't taken a flu shot yet. Is it because (1) they don't want to use 2 of them since they are in such short supply or (2) they know more about the rumors of increased problems with this particular vaccine and think that it might be OK for YOU to risk it but they are too important to risk it. Both rumors have started circulating. One version looks good and the other version looks bad. I really don't care which version is true since I believe this story dwarfs ANOTHER promise made that his administration couldn't keep. Plus, I'm not supposed to take the flu shot either way, so what do I care?.........lol.

Oh, during your little tirade, don't forget to mention that this is the earliest flu season on record, with millions of people being hit earlier and harder by the flu than in any of the past years. That *might* have something to do with the availability of vaccinations...it might not. Either way, it is important to note the statistical data of timing. We are a whole month early with all of these flu illnesses.

I guess that's the Obama Administrations fault, too. It must be part of the plan...somehow they have learned to control viruses and use them to target specific individuals and demopgraphics. Than they withhold all the good vaccines for other demographics, while providing tainted vaccines to the poor and weak, free of charge, of course. It's how they plan to egt you...

 

[medusacoils]

#1--The president doesn't have a whole lot of say wbout when and how much vaccine can be made and provided. They recieve information from the developers and pass it on to the citizens. If the developers, for whatever reason, cannot provide the amounts specified...whose fault is that? Certainly not Barack Obama's...

Kind of like the bad intelligence, given to Pres. GWB regarding the weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein had. :sidestep:

Wayne

 

[wstphal]

And since when did it become my responsibility to pay for a doctor's malpractice insurance? Let me get this straight...I'm not allowed to ask for help from anyone to pay for MY insurance...but I am fully expected to cover the cost of malpractice insurance? If we had fewer people trying to get rich by suing people for no reason, that cost might go down. Further, if we didn't have doctors making horrible ad deplorable treatment choices, that cost might go down.

Malpractice insurance is a cost of doing business for a physician. Physicians have to pay their staff, rent, utilities and insurance BEFORE they pay themselves. If, after those expenses are paid, they don't get any paycheck, they close their offices. So yeah, patients have to pay the malpractice insurance.

The real issue with malpractice is not just the cost of the insurance premiums, though. A study here in Massachusetts suggested that up to 25% of all tests ordered were done just to make sure the doctor was "covered" in case of a lawsuit. That's a heck of a lot of cost. Reforming malpractice might reduce total healthcare costs by a large amount, maybe as much as 10-20%. That would sure pay for care for a lot of uninsured/underinsured.

 

[mike17l]

Oh, during your little tirade, don't forget to mention that this is the earliest flu season on record, with millions of people being hit earlier and harder by the flu than in any of the past years. That *might* have something to do with the availability of vaccinations...it might not. Either way, it is important to note the statistical data of timing. We are a whole month early with all of these flu illnesses.

I guess that's the Obama Administrations fault, too. It must be part of the plan...somehow they have learned to control viruses and use them to target specific individuals and demopgraphics. Than they withhold all the good vaccines for other demographics, while providing tainted vaccines to the poor and weak, free of charge, of course. It's how they plan to egt you...

Dont forget about the hurricane machine the GWB and Haliburton have in the gulf.