- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 28, 2012 at 5:00 pm #762519
kootchmanMemberJuly 28, 2012 at 5:02 pm #762520
kootchmanMemberSo an ObgGyn has a 300K overhead to cover…. and you want to lower medical costs. That 300K comes from patients, insurance, or the pracice will cease all together. They have trials because trial lawyers are greedy and jurors are the arbitrators of legalized lottery winnings, Just when pre natal care is recognized as the first line of necessity in preventative health care… the shortage of ObGyb and Pediatricians is increasing, That;s 7.5 million dollars over a 30 year practice… and rising all the time. ONE lawsuit.. makes them uninsurable and they have to leave the profession. I know .. stick to da man…it feels good.
July 28, 2012 at 5:09 pm #762521
redblackParticipantDP: an increasing number of lawsuits is an indication that an industry is in need of regulatory reform. make that dire need.
want to reduce the lawsuits? make better laws.
July 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm #762522
kootchmanMemberfor almost 20 years, republicans have had multiple instances to address health care insurance reform, and they ignored every one.
Better check that again,.. neither Party has done a thing… cause in the main…. most people were happy as a clam with their healthcare…. and they want Obamacare repealed,… even the Democrats know that. Hear any campaign stump speeches from the Messiah on the wonders of his plan? Nope just bad Bain, Bain, Bain.. and it aint working.
July 28, 2012 at 5:20 pm #762523
redblackParticipantwell, now democrats have done something.
and again, define “most people.” because 15% of the population without access to health care is a problem, and it’s one that directly affects those who do have access.
“are you happy with your health care?”
“sure. i don’t have any. but at least it doesn’t cost me anything.”
is that really the logic? let the insured pay for the uninsured?
ACA seems like better logic: make people insure themselves (no free-riders) or tax them to cover the cost of a bunch of untreated sick people running through the streets.
July 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm #762524
DBPMemberAll of us.. we have many posters on the blog, with no health insurance getting world class medicine, .. with technologies and medications not even close to being available in other countries. Thee are moe CAT scans in Seattle that all of Canada,, and if you are in a car accident and airlifted to Swedish,,, and are indigent you will get one. —The kootchman
—Yeah, you’ve got some good evidence there, kootch. But as usual, you draw the wrong conclusions.
Â
Â
<anecdote>
Over the past year, I’ve spent many hours at the Harborview Emergency Department, watching over a mutual friend of ours who’s had successive, life-threatening bouts with COPD, pneumonia, and congestive heart failure.
While he was at Harborview, our friend truly did get some of this world-class care — for which we both were of course very grateful.
</anecdote>
Â
Â
Do you know why our friend ended up in the Harborview ED clinging to life?
It’s not because he hadn’t been trying to take care of himself.
It’s not even because he’d been sleeping out of doors at the time, though I’m sure that played a part.
Nope. The reason our friend ended up in the ED is simply because he couldn’t get in to see a GP when he needed to.
And that’s because he had no insurance coverage.
You know, someday I’m going to try to get a good estimate of how much money Harborview — that’s us, the taxpayers — had to spend to save our friend’s life. Let’s tot up a ballpark figure now, shall we?
â–º Three weeks in ED on life support
â–º One week in respite care
â–º Months of almost daily “after care” and follow-up visits
â–º Oxygen and meds
â–º Rehab therapy
Gotta be at least three or four hundred grand all told, wouldn’t you say?
And how much would it have cost us to have him see a GP and get the COPD and pneumonia treated in a timely way?
Sorry. You’ll have to excuse me now.
I think I’m gonna be sick . . .
July 28, 2012 at 5:39 pm #762525
DBPMemberÂ
What seems to be the matter, Mr. Preston?
—It hurts when I do this, Doc:
Â
Â
So don’t DO that, Mr. Preston.
—I can’t help it, Doc. It’s this place where I’m living . . .
Â
July 28, 2012 at 6:50 pm #762526
DBPMemberHey, redblack. We should be clear on something. A profusion of lawsuits does NOT demonstrate malfeasance. All it demonstrates is the presence of money.
Trust me, if we paid doctors like we pay teachers and vice versa, you would see medical malpractice suits drop concurrently with a rise in lawsuits against teachers (Johnny can’t read, mo’fos. I wanna get PAID!)
Don’t believe me?
Check this story from today’s Times.
Some bedbug of a tort lawyer is suing a Mississippi casino (a casino!) for $75 million. The reason? The casino let his “client” drink himself to death on the premises.
Can you believe it?
How often do people drink themselves to death every day on the mean streets of White Center? Yet where are all lawyers to protect them from that by “punishing” the bars who serve them?
Hm. No lawyers patrolling White Center? Gosh. Wonder why.
â–º This $75 million figure has nothing to do with making casinos safer places to drink.
â–º It has nothing to do with the “sentimental value” (if any) that the dead alcoholic might have had to his family.
â–º It has everything to do with the perception, on the part of lawyer and the dead guy’s family, that this CASINO has A LOT of MONEY (which it prolly does) and that they all just hit the jackpot.
The same thing applies to lawsuits against doctors. Fool-headed juries think that all doctors are just pooping out cash, and whether that perception is true or not doesn’t really matter, because doctors have to buy malpractice insurance as if they WERE pooping out cash.
****************************************************************************************
Lest you think I’m taking the kootchman’s side on this one, I’m not. In the first place, the only doctors who would be protected from unlimited liability are the ones who are part of the public system, and they’ll have their salaries capped as well.
—And that’s something the kootchman just can’t abide. As we know, he can’t abide ANYTHING that would actually result in us getting public health care. So my advice would be to just go along with the tort reform thing for now and let the kootchman be seen as the one who is unwilling to compromise.
–David
July 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm #762527
redblackParticipantA profusion of lawsuits does NOT demonstrate malfeasance. All it demonstrates is the presence of money.
interesting theory.
but you do realize that access to our nation’s various court systems has a prohibitively high cost, right?
that might explain your casino-versus-white-center-tavern theory.
i would counter-theorize – spitballing here, mind you – that poor people don’t sue very often, and if they do, they’re usually not reckless with that power.
it’s a rich man’s sport.
i would also theorize that the increasing number of tee vee ads for class-action suits against pharma is absolutely not an indication of honey drawing flies. i believe it’s an indication that pharma was putting a bunch of unregulated drugs on the market and that doctors were basically acting as drug-pushing pimps. and this was a result of republican deregulation and gutting of the FDA. without researching the topic, i believe that democrats restored some regulatory sanity to the industry in their brief tenure, and that wronged parties now have recourse to sue.
the bigger picture, though, is that if a doctor – or a pharmacist – does maim someone to the point where he can no longer work, and you cap damages, how is that fair? and don’t forget that before ACA this plaintiff is now going to have even higher insurance premiums. maybe he’ll need lifelong professional assistance. specialized vehicles. level entry to his home for his wheelchair.
no, i don’t agree with tort reform, at least not in the broad sense that it could reduce the cost of health care in any significant way. and the whole idea is to punish the defendant if he’s found guilty or negligent and remove his ability to earn money or maim anyone else. not the other way around. the whole cap on damages argument seeks to punish the plaintiff and discourage legitimate lawsuits, in my opinion.
besides, this issue is dog-whistle politics for conservatives and really nothing more: the trial lawyers’ association gives money to the democratic party.
July 30, 2012 at 4:11 pm #762528
kootchmanMemberwage and price controls have never worked…. ever. Cap the earnings of doctors? Ha ha ha…. you will even savvier smarter people migrating to where the money is… they will run rings around the federal government… we will give rise to a super class of financial predators! Would you spend 8-10 years of your life to be capped at 250K per year in income? Hell no. I am betting with socialized medicine, caps on service, federal guidelines, human nature being what it is… we have McDocc’s running 20 patients an hour through the turnstile. Been there, seen that. redblack, this is something I do know about as in the upstairs office… drug trials and protocols are being contracted… NO drug hits the street without FDA regulation. Look if you have a blood problem, and you get dosed with Coumadin (aka wararin, a rat poison)… some outcomes will be hemorrage and stroke… powerful drugs have side effects. FDA does risk/benefit analysis… will most people be helped..? yes, it goes on the market even with a known fatality rate. Drugs that force the pancreas to make more insulin… will cause some pancreatic cancers.. there are no safe drugs. You want an orphan drug? Fine..the pharma has to recover that 700,000,000 to recover that cost.. or the 50K affected are going without treatment. A “zero” mistake profession? Never will happen. See the “O” ring failure on Challenger? The nurse that committed suicide at Childrens Hospital .. didn’t make the mistake dliberately… it was a tragedy. Did the 20 million dollar lawsuit make anyone “whole” again? No. Rush? It takes 7-10 years to get through the FDA process and clinical trials.
August 1, 2012 at 3:22 pm #762529
kootchmanMemberAnd I guess this is just another nefarious plan … that new medical devices tax?
An Indiana company’s decision to scrap expansion plans due to a looming tax on medical devices has renewed pressure on the Senate to consider a House-passed bill repealing the tax.
Cook Medical, an Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer, last week said it’s nixing plans to open five new plants in the next five years — claiming the tax will cost between $15 million and $30 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities in the Midwest.
“Unfortunately, we have had to shelve these expansion plans and look overseas for that,” Allison Giles, vice president for federal affairs with the company, told FoxNews.com. “It’s a huge amount for us.”
See… that’s how it works… capital and jobs go when the government is business hostile. way to go… more jobs and more capital investment to China. See the world market is huge.. billions of people… we are a small portion of the world market… no HAS to manufacture here.
August 1, 2012 at 3:23 pm #762530
kootchmanMemberAnd I guess this is just another nefarious plan … that new medical devices tax?
An Indiana company’s decision to scrap expansion plans due to a looming tax on medical devices has renewed pressure on the Senate to consider a House-passed bill repealing the tax.
Cook Medical, an Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer, last week said it’s nixing plans to open five new plants in the next five years — claiming the tax will cost between $15 million and $30 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities in the Midwest.
“Unfortunately, we have had to shelve these expansion plans and look overseas for that,” Allison Giles, vice president for federal affairs with the company, told FoxNews.com. “It’s a huge amount for us.”
See… that’s how it works… capital and jobs go when the government is business hostile. way to go… more jobs and more capital investment to China. See the world market is huge.. billions of people… we are a small portion of the world market… no HAS to manufacture here.
http://www.cookmedical.com/clinical.do
Let’s kill off another American industrial segment…
August 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm #762531
JVMemberK-man…if only Cook Medical made solar panels instead of advancing medical technology.
THEN they would get billions of dollars (to fail) instead of paying millions of dollars in taxes. That’s how they distinguish between a selfless company, and an evil corporation sending more jobs overseas!
No matter how many of these companies are out there in front of their faces, they will just deny the facts of international business, and revert to class warfare.
Making America competitive and trying to attract these types of businesses is equal to “corporate welfare” in their eye.
August 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm #762532
JoBParticipantkootch and JV
so answer me one question fellas..
why do you prefer a system that has American taxpayers paying for indigent care in the United States in the most expensive way possible for taxpayers and least effective way possible for patients?
why do you prefer a system whose cost to you is predicated on several profit centers that don’t actually provide health care?
why do you prefer a system where your insurance company can cancel you retroactively for a medical condition your doctor didn’t diagnose and you didn’t know you had?
why do you prefer a system where you pay more and get less for your dollar than you would in any other industrialized country in the world?
your ideology is in direct conflict with your wallet and yet you will defend to the death the right of the medical healthcare industry to make incredible profits while delivering substandard care to the majority.
All of the problems that kootch brings up with the competition to provide the biggest newest most expensive medical device would end with a single payer system…
because there would be no profit in the competition.
Ponder that!
August 1, 2012 at 7:25 pm #762533
kootchmanMemberBecause while expensive, it is less expensive than Obamacare. The costs of unreimbursed coverage is … and this is Obama’s own statistic, $900. Now, no matter how you slice it… it’s cheaper than the $2000 plus it now costs to cover all the mandates of stupidity. Like free contraception,. Nothing is free. Actually the taxpayer doesn’t foot the bill.. but they could.. if we had a flat tax and everyone paid income taxes.. but the costs are pushed on to private care insurance.
If single payer was less expensive… I would be the last to object. And of course my perks were preserved. I like what I have… and that was the promise… if you liked it you could keep it.. not ” if you like we are going to tax the hell out of it… have you seen the costs of insurance lately? Relatively low cost, student health insurance for low risk college students went from $580 per year to $2400 and over 500 colleges have dropped student health insurance… and as predicted, businesses are dropping dependent plans entirely. So your 26 year old is now uninsurable… good move. Substandard care? The majority? where do you come up with this stuff? Geesh.. pay cash when you are young and carry big deductible catastrophic coverage. That’s what insurance is for…
See all those wonderful. patent protected products? Because they are profitable, they come to market. We get first crack at wonderful products and drugs. I have pre-existing conditions and I changed insurance twice in the last three years. As long as the customer base is large enough to cover the actuarial risk, no problemo, No profits? FIne.. lose the innovation and the industry, There are tens of thousands of surviving AIDS patients that are damn grateful that the first retro-virals were around when their infection was detected. Even at 10-20K per month. Now,…we can treat all sorts of folks, even in the developing world… with retro virals. Those private drug companies expended billions of dollars of R &D and clinical trials to get there.
I prefer the system we have now… as do most Americans. And, as it now appears, Obamacare is falling apart… the funding sources are drying up fast… and why should my excellent healthcare plan be taxed? The most expensive way is not indigent care… its’ Obamacare… and the numbers show it. Remember the objective was to drive costs down… not up
Tell me what costs has government ever reduced? wanna build a bridge?….. identical designs.. one on private property, one on a government easement with federal dollars…. which one will cost less? The one on private property will cost about 30=40% less… competitive bidding. Not bid rigging government entitlements to unions, set asides….
August 1, 2012 at 8:03 pm #762534
kootchmanMemberThis is a primer… How to make sure you have over 41 months of unemployment above 8 per cent, drive high wage jobs and industry offshorem employ hundreds of Chinese workers.. and then… of course pay 10% offshore taxes to the host government… way to think that one through. No problem though… all those construction jobs … the Chinese need em more… local and state taxes to support schools, libraries and parks? Gone of Guangzo… to educate their up and coming bio-engineers… we will keep churning our Wal Mart workers and government dependents.. No thanks Cook… we don;t want a bio engineering industry here… we’ll pass thank-you. Oh yea… and Cook can put their profits on deposit in Singapore or Chinese banks…. perfect. Ooops . just saw Market Watch…. manufacturing down again for the third straight month. This has to be deliberate JV .. no country can be this stupid on purpose!! Another month of GDP growth of 1.5% or, does Obama think that is too high? we should shoot for 1%?
August 1, 2012 at 9:30 pm #762535
DBPMemberredblack: Spitballs at 10 paces!
You said:
the bigger picture, though, is that if a doctor – or a pharmacist – does maim someone to the point where he can no longer work, and you cap damages, how is that fair? and don’t forget that before ACA this plaintiff is now going to have even higher insurance premiums. maybe he’ll need lifelong professional assistance. specialized vehicles. level entry to his home for his wheelchair
That’s not the issue in tort reform. Please note that tort reform only encompasses what are called “punitive damages” — and not loss of income, medical expenses, etc.
Even AFTER tort reform, if you take some pill and have a stroke, and can’t work, you and your family can still recover an amount equal to your estimated total wages until you turn 65. And there’s no cap on that. Likewise, if you need a million dollars in medical care per year, you’ll get it. What you WON’T get is some variable and highly subjective amount to compensate you for “pain and suffering” — because that amount would be capped at $250,000. Or whatever. It could be raised from that, across the board; it could even be lowered.
My main point here is that these so-called punitive damages don’t seem to be working at punishing wrongdoers into changing their ways. In the first place, as any parent will tell you, the only kind of punishment that works is CONSISTENT punishment, and these lawsuits — a thousand dollars here, a million there — are anything BUT consistent. In the second place, it’s quite likely that many of the companies that are supposed to be feeling the pain simply look at lawsuits as the cost of doing business. If they lose one, it doesn’t motivate them to change their corporate culture. It simply motivates them to hire better attorneys.
Look, I don’t want to give you the impression that I disagree with you on some of your main points, because I actually DO agree with you. For example, I DO agree with you that there are wrongdoers who need to be taught a lesson. Moreover, I DO agree with you that our regulatory oversight structure needs to be strengthened.
The question is: What’s the best way to accomplish those goals? We’ve TRIED the laissez faire approach, and that hasn’t worked. We’ve TRIED the punitive damages approach, and THAT hasn’t worked.
So what’s the answer?
I’ll tell you what the answer is. It’s . . . .
[Arggggggh!!!]
Â
Â
Â
August 4, 2012 at 1:44 am #762536
kootchmanMemberNot a shot at Obamacare. But a serious question. What pharmaceutical has no side effects? None. Is it neglect to write a scrip’ and have a bad outcome? I don’t think so. The need to intervene in so many young lives with Pharma… cannot be inconsequential. I take the diabetes meds… started at 54…. or thereabouts.. now to ward off the complications, I am mildly dosed with statins and chloresterol lowering drugs. It’s a trade off, some Pharma risk or some diabetes complication risks. what about the kids I see in the office… who are on similar or even more severe regimens … and I mean kids! The doc is frustrated as hell… concerned… Typpe ll diabetes at age 16? How do you force a kid to put down the nintendo and be active? I was no super star… but we had gym classes 3X a week and intramural sports every day at lunch hour…. plus the varsity team sports. That drug induced stroke DPB… may not be a mistake at all… it may be the standard of care as it is. Even aspirin has a warning label. No drugs is all help and no potential injury.
August 4, 2012 at 4:19 am #762537
JoBParticipantkootch..
did you know that pharmacuetical companies get to decide which side effects reported by doctors are relevant to their medication and can decide not to report those they decide are irrelevant?
i took one in the 80s that almost killed me. It was finally removed from the market because it killed an amazing number of people.
it turns out that the pharmaceutical company had numerous reports of anaphylactic shock deaths in people who were taking this medication but decided that information was irrelevant.
you can only claim informed consent when you are actually informed of the possible side effects that can occur from taking a medication.
the company was in a race to recover their costs before the connection between their medication and those deaths was officially recognized.
this is what happens when you place your safety in the hands of someone/something whose primary consideration is profits..
August 4, 2012 at 6:11 am #762538
kootchmanMemberUh JoB… I know the protocols… I have a resident expert… ALL side effects reported in clinical trials are reported. Part f the protocol.. As happens, clinical trials are statistical extrapolations … not comprehensive or complete. Thalidomide comes to mind. Some drugs are withheld from … for instance, pregnant women because a Pharma won’t work with child age bearing women. Liability is too high…. they try mice first.. At some point the population ar large is exposed if the FDA does the risk assessment, I know your statement is not correct. No drug is risk free.
August 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm #762539
miwsParticipantJob, ya durn hottie you!
Doncha know that providing kootch with historical facts that point out the sins of corporate America, is gonna get turned around as being the gubmint’s and/or John Q. Public’s fault?
Mike
August 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm #762540
TanDLParticipantSidebar to the current leaning of this thread: One U.S. citizen’s experience with Health Care in Canada.
http://ayoungmomsmusings.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/how-i-lost-my-fear-of-universal-health.html
August 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm #762541
kootchmanMemberCippity cloppity … is it Sir Gallahad on a white charger or Sancho Panza on his donkey?
August 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm #762542
miwsParticipantThanks for that TanDL. Interesting read.
It’s just so logical, and makes so much sense…
Mike
August 10, 2012 at 1:10 pm #762543
TanDLParticipantOops… slip of the tongue depressor? Now Romney’s proud of his health care initiative? Conservatives upset.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.