I thought I explained this before, but let's have one more go-round.
no that's not the problem, the problem is you are only addressing what benefits your point of view
Quote:
1. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. Period. Caveat: if your family and/or friends are able to and wish to loan you what you need, wonderful! Pay them back and be prepared to help them in their time of need.
1.) so should people that can't prove they can afford hospital bills be left to die? if not who should pay? (hint: most poor people will never pay off a 200k medical bill, so that is not an answer)
Quote:
2. Costs would be lower if government was entirely removed from the health-care equation. The $200k medical bill might be a quarter or less and many families could indeed afford to cover the cost. It wouldn't be easy, but it would be possible.
as in have no medical standards?
as in give hospitals the free ability they already have to charge cash patients insurance rates (which are often 1/2 or even more of a discount)?
remove more restrictions?
what restrictions do hospitals have to keep them from charging what it costs?
And don't say less diagnostic tests or some b.s. like that, you know that's not gonna be the difference in costs
Quote:
3. I advocate having health insurance. It's smart. Get it. One way to make it more affordable is to, again, get government regulations out of the friggin' way. Let insurance companies do business over state lines.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
how can you not see the problem with this at all??????????
if they sell insurance over state lines all protections and lobbying efforts come from one state, easy lobbying for corporations, the consumer doesn't stand a ******* chance
do you really not see the problem here? seriously?
(page 130 in the link below for proof- they even have the disclaimer specifically stating that)
I have no disagreement with you that something labeled "health insurance" would be cheaper, it certainly would be, but our cars would be far cheaper if we had them made to chinese safety standards....
what is the point in buying healthcare once all of the insurers move to states with laws only benefiting them and screwing the consumers (similar to what credit card companies did that lead to the national regulation of those after they abused their lobbying powers to destroy any consumer protections or regulations) Yes the extremely limited coverage with no consumer protection would be cheap, but worthless when something actually did go wrong
you can't possibly think health insurance companies operate in the best interest of it's customers, if you think that you are incredibly naive, they are a corporation, their number one prority at ALL times is the shareholder. This works for all other industry because there are real alternatives, a healthcare market so easily lobbied from one state would not give alternatives at all in this regard.
say state "A" demands mental health coverage of it's insurers and state "B" does not, so now everyone who does not need mental health coverage will buy in state B leaving only the people in state A's plan who all want mental health coverage, so now state A has to increase all of it's rates to account for every member needing mental health services OR move to state B so they don't have to offer mental health services and stay competitive. so you say they are a free company to do what they want, you say? well where does that leave the welfare of our population?
Quote:
4. Overhaul the litigation industry of this country. If you spill hot coffee on your nethers or break a leg while trespassing, that's no one's problem but yours. You eat the cost. That means serious tort reform. Doctors should be able to tell patients "No, I won't prescribe these meds you're asking for" without fear of a suit.
Again do you even know what you are talking about?
yes the coffee incident sounds quite stupid, but do you know the details? do you know their coffee was being served at extremely high temperatures for coffee, far higher then any other place that serves coffee? regular coffee doesn't leave third degree burns from a spill. It was a known problem with hundreds of complaints that mcdonalds failed to fix, that is why they got sued, not because of the customer's stupidity, had mcdonald's served it at even near normal coffee temperature it would have been a very minor or non issue.
tort reform, yes republicans love to use that. let's not hold anyone responsible for anything they do. we don't have the civil courts for any reason at all, let's just undo our entire justice system while we are at it. make no one responsible for the harm they do.
let me ask you something, why do we have juries for civil suits?
no seriously why? what purpose do they serve? think about this in depth? and please answer as apparently you don't think they do anything beneficial.
companies love to always say a lawsuit is frivolous, but if they are paying then usually that means they accept the blame and want to avoid the wraith of a jury which could award a LOT more based on the full evidence. And not due to cost or any of that other b.s. as the companies usually have MUCH MUCH deeper pockets then the person suing.
The republican bill tort reform is a mishmash of consumer/ civil justice destroying elements
limits on awards over immediate costs for care such as lost wages/job potential etc...
limits on what percent a lawyer can take fore services - this would give companies a price point at which they know a lawyer won't fight back, so any large company can easily threaten to outspend a lawyer
severe limits on length of time - any medical error that happened when you were
don't believe me, it's in there, go read it: http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
don't just read the summary (it sounds good), read the bill (where all the dark and evil details come out)
We're probably talking past each other somewhat and we may agree on more than is apparent in this thread.
My objective is to eliminate incentives for the health care industry to artificially raise costs by eliminating the allure of billing the government (taxpayers) and by eliminating the absurd cost of THEIR insurance.
There is no provision in the constitution that allows government to prevent businesses from doing business across state lines. In fact, the feds are specifically tasked with ensuring fair business is permitted across state lines.
There is also no provision in the constitution for the feds to mandate everyone have insurance, nor is there any authority granted for the feds to take money from some to balance costs so those without means can still afford health insurance. That is merely wealth redistribution.
Now, if you insist that costs would rise significantly if government were taken out of the loop (at least insofar as taxpayer dollars were accessible to the industry), then I would probably favor some form of regulation prohibiting price gouging in the same way I would favor crushing cartels and trusts by way of existing ant-trust laws. But I don't buy your premise that costs would rise or stay at their current levels. I believe they would drop.
No, I don't advocate that poor people should be kicked to the curb to die because they can't pay. Instead, I would like to see community-level solutions rather than federal solutions.
We're probably talking past each other somewhat and we may agree on more than is apparent in this thread.
My objective is to eliminate incentives for the health care industry to artificially raise costs by eliminating the allure of billing the government (taxpayers) and by eliminating the absurd cost of THEIR insurance.
There is no provision in the constitution that allows government to prevent businesses from doing business across state lines. In fact, the feds are specifically tasked with ensuring fair business is permitted across state lines.
There is also no provision in the constitution for the feds to mandate everyone have insurance, nor is there any authority granted for the feds to take money from some to balance costs so those without means can still afford health insurance. That is merely wealth redistribution.
Now, if you insist that costs would rise significantly if government were taken out of the loop (at least insofar as taxpayer dollars were accessible to the industry), then I would probably favor some form of regulation prohibiting price gouging in the same way I would favor crushing cartels and trusts by way of existing ant-trust laws. But I don't buy your premise that costs would rise or stay at their current levels. I believe they would drop.
No, I don't advocate that poor people should be kicked to the curb to die because they can't pay. Instead, I would like to see community-level solutions rather than federal solutions.
you just kind of ignored my post and questions again to you and you redirected the argument where you wanted it to go......
talk about a red herring post...... your post relative to my response to your post is nothing but red herring, you didn't address a single thing I said in response to your post.
hate to be rude to you but seriously you did. and we don't seem to agree, you put forth some ideals that will not work, are you saying you now agree with me, or was this post just a distraction away from my post towards you?
Well, I've tried to express my opinions in a reasonably consistent and polite manner. If you go back and read my posts (without reading into my posts), you will probably get an idea of what I stand for and you'll get an answer to most of the questions you asked. If what has been posted thus far isn't to your liking or doesn't cover all your questions, I'm sorry.
I wish we lived closer -- I'd like to be able to talk with you in person over a beer or three. You'd probably find I'm not the mean/stupid s.o.b. you might think I am.
Well, I've tried to express my opinions in a reasonably consistent and polite manner. If you go back and read my posts (without reading into my posts), you will probably get an idea of what I stand for and you'll get an answer to most of the questions you asked. If what has been posted thus far isn't to your liking or doesn't cover all your questions, I'm sorry.
I wish we lived closer -- I'd like to be able to talk with you in person over a beer or three. You'd probably find I'm not the mean/stupid s.o.b. you might think I am.
Peace, bro.
whoa dude, I never said you were mean, stupid or a s.o.b., I did say you need to explain what you said, as what you suggested would not work. And it's not that you didn't answer ALL of my questions to you, it's that you didn't really attempt to answer ANY of the questions I asked of you in my response to your post.
I'm not trying to belittle or be a jerk to you and apologize if my post seemed harsh, but I was trying to have a debate, and for a proper debate the conversation has to go both ways, and it's not going that way, I'm just asking you to provide a rebuttal or agreement to my rebuttal for you.If you changed your mind, that's fine too, just say so, no harm in that either.
don't take it so personally but do please to debate a bit more. throw the ball back with your thoughts instead of getting an all new ball and starting over.
whoa dude, I never said you were mean, stupid or a s.o.b., I did say you need to explain what you said, as what you suggested would not work.
No, I don't need to explain anything. But I did. See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
I'm not trying to belittle or be a jerk to you and apologize if my post seemed harsh, but I was trying to have a debate, and for a proper debate the conversation has to go both ways, and it's not going that way, I'm just asking you to provide a rebuttal or agreement to my rebuttal for you.
There are other issues that we haven't even begun to address, particularly around our fiscal crisis, that play into arguments on Obamacare. I was reluctant to get into all that for fear of hijacking the thread. But IMO, it's necessary in order to really hash this out.
Another issue is our fundamental beliefs and principles. In my opinion, the government does not exist to take care of us. But it does exist to ensure the free exchange of money for products and services takes place without coercion or theft.
So...to answer your questions more specifically:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
Family is great but the injuries from being hit by a car can easily reach $200k or more, now especially considering he was a student at the time that generally means little to no savings, if he did get into trouble would you really expect the family to pitch in 200 grand to pay for his care? or would they say just file bankruptcy?
It's not a matter of love and being able to borrow money, it's a matter of intelligence. no one in the position would not just say "I can't pay" and/or file bankruptcy.
even still, most people cannot just call up family members to borrow a couple hundred grand for medical bills. it's irrational and illogical to even pretend that is anyway valid to make up for not having health insurance.
generally everyone says they will do the right thing, until it doesn't work out in their favor to do so. So if you are going without insurance and don't have a couple hundred grand in the bank you are essentially saying I expect the insured people to pay more to cover my risk....
I'm saying a free-market system would force prices down and the hefty fees associated with health care today would be decreased. Also, I see no harm in making payments toward a big bill if someone can't pay it off in one big chunk. A friend of mine had medical bills in the neighborhood of $1 million when his daughter was born with many problems. He's still paying that off and probably will be for decades to come. Had he asked me and others for a couple grand to contribute toward it, I'd have given it to him. But he didn't figure he needed to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
1.) so should people that can't prove they can afford hospital bills be left to die? if not who should pay? (hint: most poor people will never pay off a 200k medical bill, so that is not an answer)
I answered this, but again: no, poor people should not be ignored and left to die. There are certainly ways in which communities (towns, villages, cities, counties or even at the state level) can levy taxes or solicit contributions toward institutions that provide care for people who have no insurance and can't get care from a hospital or other conventional means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
as in have no medical standards?
No, certainly not. That's not what I meant by "get government completely out of the industry". While it is undeniably true the FDA, to take one bureaucracy, is in bed with big companies and steers its regulatory board in such a way to only approve products or services they can maintain control over (eg: big tobacco products are approved with over 4000 chemicals in them, but Chinese electronic cigarettes which contain only 72 chemicals are not approved). I don't advocate abolishing the FDA but it sure needs an overhaul and the crony capitalism needs to end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
as in give hospitals the free ability they already have to charge cash patients insurance rates (which are often 1/2 or even more of a discount)?
Hospitals today are businesses and as such they decide the rates for products and services they offer. I don't have a problem with that. Again, a free market system would force prices down because the market couldn't bear the current price points of most procedures without access to big bucks from both the taxpayer and insurance companies. The collusion between hospitals and insurance companies must also stop, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
remove more restrictions?
More like remove more obligations. That is, remove the obligation hospitals currently endure where they must care for people who cannot pay. Do not serve those who use the Emergency Room as their primary care physician. And so on. If a hospital administrative staff chooses to continue offering help to those who can't pay and the hospital is OK with eating those charges, that's fine -- it's their choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
what restrictions do hospitals have to keep them from charging what it costs?
What leverage do people have to force prices down to reasonable levels? Why does it cost $20 for an Advil caplet in the hospital? Competition in the health care field would necessarily lower fees: those caregivers who can attract more patients as a result of lower costs (while maintaining quality service) will reap a profit while those that charge higher rates will either go under or be forced to reduce fees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
And don't say less diagnostic tests or some b.s. like that, you know that's not gonna be the difference in costs
Actually, we see a huge array of unnecessary diagnostic tests run today becase doctors and hospitals figure the cost of running those tests is less than the cost of a law suit later on if they misdiagnosed something. That's even taking into account the outrageous costs of malpractice insurance. Also, drugs are administered frequently when there is no real need for them. Antibiotics have less effect today because they are overprescribed. When a patient walks visits his doctor, very often they will insist on some magic pill to cure them of the sniffles when they will get better on their own soon anyway. Again, out of concern for suits against them, doctors prescribe rather than tell patients to go home and rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
if they sell insurance over state lines all protections and lobbying efforts come from one state, easy lobbying for corporations, the consumer doesn't stand a ******* chance
I wouldn't object to regulation at the national level that restrained cartels or monopolies or other mechanisms that would permit insurance companies to collude and jack prices sky-high. In fact, that is one of the things the federal government is obliged to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
what is the point in buying healthcare once all of the insurers move to states with laws only benefiting them and screwing the consumers (similar to what credit card companies did that lead to the national regulation of those after they abused their lobbying powers to destroy any consumer protections or regulations) Yes the extremely limited coverage with no consumer protection would be cheap, but worthless when something actually did go wrong
I'm not sure I follow you. If you purchase insurance and you know your deductible and what your insurance will and will not cover, the insurance company is obliged to pay (or not, depending on the conditions of the policy) when you need it. Being in another state won't matter. If lower corporate tax rates or other incentives entice insurance companies to relocate from New York to New Hampshire, say, why should I be bothered by that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
you can't possibly think health insurance companies operate in the best interest of it's customers, if you think that you are incredibly naive, they are a corporation, their number one prority at ALL times is the shareholder. This works for all other industry because there are real alternatives, a healthcare market so easily lobbied from one state would not give alternatives at all in this regard.
Insurance companies exist to make as big a profit as they can. All businesses do I have no problem with that. Assuming they pay out when necessary, there's no harm or foul. But if their policies are bogus and contain wording that makes it virtually impossible for the consumer to collect, there's no objection from me if federal regulations prevented that. Again, that's an obligation of the federal government: if consumers as a whole are shafted by a company across state lines, the feds can and must resolve it.
say state "A" demands mental health coverage of it's insurers and state "B" does not, so now everyone who does not need mental health coverage will buy in state B leaving only the people in state A's plan who all want mental health coverage, so now state A has to increase all of it's rates to account for every member needing mental health services OR move to state B so they don't have to offer mental health services and stay competitive. so you say they are a free company to do what they want, you say? well where does that leave the welfare of our population?
If there are onerous laws that force businesses out of a state, perhaps the people of state "A" should get in their state legislators' faces and demand a change of the law.
If there are too few people needing or wanting a particular type of coverage, then the market doesn't exist to provide that coverage. But if there are enough people who need specific coverage, the market exists and companies will provide it. Artificially decreasing the cost of that coverage by legislative mandate is anathema to the free market concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
Again do you even know what you are talking about?
Yes. I'm concerned you don't know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
yes the coffee incident sounds quite stupid, but do you know the details?
Yes, I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
do you know their coffee was being served at extremely high temperatures for coffee, far higher then any other place that serves coffee?
That's irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
regular coffee doesn't leave third degree burns from a spill.
Call me a pansy, but I wouldn't want to dump Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks coffee on Mr. Happy, either. It would hurt like crazy. So I don't do anything so stupid as put hot (or cold, for that matter) containers in my crotch. Bottom line: the lady who did this didn't think and acted stupidly. It was her mistake and she's the only one to blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
It was a known problem with hundreds of complaints that mcdonalds failed to fix, that is why they got sued, not because of the customer's stupidity, had mcdonald's served it at even near normal coffee temperature it would have been a very minor or non issue.
If the coffee at McDonald's is too hot, go elsewhere for your coffee. Easy solution, eh?
Or do you advocate a Federal Bureau of Food and Beverage Temperature Regulation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
tort reform, yes republicans love to use that. let's not hold anyone responsible for anything they do.
The objective in suggesting tort reform is to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, most of which are settled out of court, which cost businesses and insurance companies (and by extension, consumers of products and services of those businesses and policy holders of those insurance companies) a great deal of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
we don't have the civil courts for any reason at all, let's just undo our entire justice system while we are at it. make no one responsible for the harm they do.
I'm suggesting that people who do stupid things take responsibility for them, whether it's a consumer or product/service provider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
let me ask you something, why do we have juries for civil suits?
no seriously why? what purpose do they serve? think about this in depth? and please answer as apparently you don't think they do anything beneficial.
Conflating my desire to reduce or eliminate frivolous suits and settlements with a lack of understanding of the benefit civil suits provide is absurd. In light of my explanations above, I don't see a reason to answer your questions. Call it deflecting or whatever. Or judicial system is fine in principle. Civil suits have their place, certainly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
companies love to always say a lawsuit is frivolous, but if they are paying then usually that means they accept the blame and want to avoid the wraith of a jury which could award a LOT more based on the full evidence. And not due to cost or any of that other b.s. as the companies usually have MUCH MUCH deeper pockets then the person suing.
They also wish to avoid bad press which could impact future sales. And it is often less expensive to settle out of court for $1 million than pay a gaggle of attorneys $5 million or more over the course of many years to get through one suit which they may or may not win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
The republican bill tort reform is a mishmash of consumer/ civil justice destroying elements
Screw republicans. I'm not one, I don't belong to the party, and they don't matter to me. Nor do their bills. My objective is not to remove culpability from businesses if they genuinely do something wrong. Far from it. My objective is to reduce culpability from businesses if consumers do something stupid or illegal. This will reduce everyone's costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
limits on awards over immediate costs for care such as lost wages/job potential etc...
limits on what percent a lawyer can take fore services - this would give companies a price point at which they know a lawyer won't fight back, so any large company can easily threaten to outspend a lawyer
severe limits on length of time - any medical error that happened when you were
This is a little muddled, but I'll take a stab at it. There's a balance between direct amounts and subjective amounts. The former might be based on lost wages, the latter based on the probability of retaining a job or reacquiring employment. I'm OK with leaving that up to a judge. But when a 25-year-old 7-11 employee making minimum wage slips on a slurpee spill, breaks a leg, and sues her employer for $100 million AND GETS IT that's freakin' outrageous IMO. The leg will heal and she can resume working in time.
Take a look at my post about Jim Alesi (either in this thread or another related to health care). That's precisely the sort of nonsensical crap I'd like to see eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
and we don't seem to agree,
It's clear we agree reform is necessary, but we differ on the methods that should be used to go about it. I advocate less government, less incentive to jack rates up, and a free-market solution. You advocate more intrusive government, tougher regulations, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
you put forth some ideals that will not work,
Obamacare is an extension (a mighty big one!) of government involvement in an ostensibly private industry. I guarantee nationalizing the health care industry will not improve it or make it cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJeepXJ
are you saying you now agree with me, or was this post just a distraction away from my post towards you?
No, I don't agree with the methods you suggest to reform the system. My post was meant to back away from this thread since we're either both doing a profoundly lousy job of communicating to one another or our views are diametrically opposed and we'll never agree on much.
No, I don't need to explain anything. But I did. See below.
......
I answered this, but again: no, poor people should not be ignored and left to die. There are certainly ways in which communities (towns, villages, cities, counties or even at the state level) can levy taxes or solicit contributions toward institutions that provide care for people who have no insurance and can't get care from a hospital or other conventional means.
so a less effective obamacare at a local level is ok instead of national level?
Quote:
No, certainly not. That's not what I meant by "get government completely out of the industry". While it is undeniably true the FDA, to take one bureaucracy, is in bed with big companies and steers its regulatory board in such a way to only approve products or services they can maintain control over (eg: big tobacco products are approved with over 4000 chemicals in them, but Chinese electronic cigarettes which contain only 72 chemicals are not approved). I don't advocate abolishing the FDA but it sure needs an overhaul and the crony capitalism needs to end.
I agree here but big industry will always play it's role regardless of health care reform, they are already heavily in bed with our government and until we place real restrictions against that it will continue (and this is a seperate problem from this topic)
Quote:
Hospitals today are businesses and as such they decide the rates for products and services they offer. I don't have a problem with that. Again, a free market system would force prices down because the market couldn't bear the current price points of most procedures without access to big bucks from both the taxpayer and insurance companies. The collusion between hospitals and insurance companies must also stop, of course.
but that is not how it works, there is no law against being fair NOW, but they do so because it's more profitable for them. call them up and try and get the price beforehand, if you CAN get them to give you a price the insurance company will often end up paying half that price, that is not a free market system but we have no regulations saying they have to pay cash customers more, but they do because they can make cash customers pay more. AGAIN a hospital has no restrictions saying it can not place a pricing list on it's website, absolutely nothing. But you make a lot more money by providing the service without a price s then you can charge whatever you want
Quote:
More like remove more obligations. That is, remove the obligation hospitals currently endure where they must care for people who cannot pay. Do not serve those who use the Emergency Room as their primary care physician. And so on. If a hospital administrative staff chooses to continue offering help to those who can't pay and the hospital is OK with eating those charges, that's fine -- it's their choice.
you just above said you didn't believe this, so again should we just let these people die? health care costs aren't high because of people seeking cold medicine at the E.R. (sure it has an effect but not a huge one), it's the costs for real services that must be provided or the patient will die/suffer so should we let these people die if they can't pay? (regardless this will never happen again in this country anyways)
Quote:
What leverage do people have to force prices down to reasonable levels? Why does it cost $20 for an Advil caplet in the hospital?
because there is no regulation in healthcare pricing, do you think the insurer pays that? not chance, only cash customers who don't have medical billing experts scrutinizing every bill get charged that
Quote:
Competition in the health care field would necessarily lower fees: those caregivers who can attract more patients as a result of lower costs (while maintaining quality service) will reap a profit while those that charge higher rates will either go under or be forced to reduce fees.
we ALREADY have competition, we just don't have any laws requiring them to specify pricing
Quote:
Actually, we see a huge array of unnecessary diagnostic tests run today becase doctors and hospitals figure the cost of running those tests is less than the cost of a law suit later on if they misdiagnosed something. That's even taking into account the outrageous costs of malpractice insurance. Also, drugs are administered frequently when there is no real need for them. Antibiotics have less effect today because they are overprescribed. When a patient walks visits his doctor, very often they will insist on some magic pill to cure them of the sniffles when they will get better on their own soon anyway. Again, out of concern for suits against them, doctors prescribe rather than tell patients to go home and rest.
and? yes those are issues but that's not something that limiting real, very serious lawsuits is going to fix, ok to a point it will but the added effect of having doctors not being liable for their actions is going to be far far worse. And if you think doctors are always super careful and these things are usually junk lawsuits you really need to talk to a nurse, Doctors are some of the cockiest self inflating people that exist and often have an attitude of being always right. This is a very real issue and something doctors need to address themselves. If the doctors followed common medical process and procedures they have nothing to fear from a lawsuit
Quote:
I'm not sure I follow you. If you purchase insurance and you know your deductible and what your insurance will and will not cover, the insurance company is obliged to pay (or not, depending on the conditions of the policy) when you need it. Being in another state won't matter. If lower corporate tax rates or other incentives entice insurance companies to relocate from New York to New Hampshire, say, why should I be bothered by that?
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CORPORATE TAX RATES, this has to do with certain states having less consumer protections and less requirements for healthcare.
no state could then fix it's own issues because all the companies are located elsewhere, meaning national regulation woould soon be needed as all requirements for coverage and consumer laws related to buying policies and any protections for the consumer would all be handled by a couple of states that had anti-consumer laws.
Quote:
Insurance companies exist to make as big a profit as they can. All businesses do I have no problem with that. Assuming they pay out when necessary, there's no harm or foul. But if their policies are bogus and contain wording that makes it virtually impossible for the consumer to collect, there's no objection from me if federal regulations prevented that. Again, that's an obligation of the federal government: if consumers as a whole are shafted by a company across state lines, the feds can and must resolve it.
[/QUOTE]not according to any plan that's been put forth regarding selling over state lines
If there are onerous laws that force businesses out of a state, perhaps the people of state "A" should get in their state legislators' faces and demand a change of the law.
how can you not get that, do you not see the race to the bottom? only the state with the least consumer protections and the most business friendly laws would win, the people would be absolutely screwed over EXACTLY the same way that credit card companies abused low income borrowers using the exact same plan the health insurers want to start, the only difference is there are good alternatives to credit cards, there are not to health care.
Quote:
If there are too few people needing or wanting a particular type of coverage, then the market doesn't exist to provide that coverage. But if there are enough people who need specific coverage, the market exists and companies will provide it. Artificially decreasing the cost of that coverage by legislative mandate is anathema to the free market concept.
Yes, I do.
That's irrelevant.
NO IT'S NOT, that IS what the lawsuit was about, if you make a product that is more dangerous then it should be then that is a lawsuit waiting to happen
Quote:
Call me a pansy, but I wouldn't want to dump Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks coffee on Mr. Happy, either. It would hurt like crazy. So I don't do anything so stupid as put hot (or cold, for that matter) containers in my crotch. Bottom line: the lady who did this didn't think and acted stupidly. It was her mistake and she's the only one to blame.
it would hurt but not leave third degree burns, you take risks everyday, she took the risk of what should have only been a minor burn, she did not take the risk of third degree burns, mcdonads did thta..
Quote:
If the coffee at McDonald's is too hot, go elsewhere for your coffee. Easy solution, eh?
you carry a thermometer with you and check all your food to make sure it's within normal range? good for you, but it's not within what a reasonable person should be doing
Quote:
Or do you advocate a Federal Bureau of Food and Beverage Temperature Regulation?
I advocate products should meet typical safety regulations, if something is outside of normal safety regulations it should be ccarefully stated that it is, which was not the case
Quote:
The objective in suggesting tort reform is to eliminate frivolous lawsuits, most of which are settled out of court, which cost businesses and insurance companies (and by extension, consumers of products and services of those businesses and policy holders of those insurance companies) a great deal of money.
The actual wording of any tort reform is nothing of that case, the goal is to eliminate most lawsuits, not just frivolous ones, would it save businesses money, of course! would it cause the average man who was wronged by a medical company to suffer and achieve no compensation for injuries whatsoever, yes of course, If every company could do that we would live in a great hell world of non responsible (but very rich) companies
Quote:
I'm suggesting that people who do stupid things take responsibility for them, whether it's a consumer or product/service provider.
yes and KNOWINGLY serving coffee 40 degrees warmer then every other place and within a temperature range for 3rd degree burns is pretty stupid. doctors who get lazy or get rushed and don't verify things should be responsible for their actions, drug companies that hide data to get their drugs apprved should be responsible but you just said you don't want them to be.
Quote:
Conflating my desire to reduce or eliminate frivolous suits and settlements with a lack of understanding of the benefit civil suits provide is absurd. In light of my explanations above, I don't see a reason to answer your questions. Call it deflecting or whatever. Or judicial system is fine in principle. Civil suits have their place, certainly.
but you just said you wanted tort reform to destroy the ability of civil suits, So I ask again what is the point of a jury to decide if something is fair or not if we have tort reform to prevent that from ever happening
Quote:
They also wish to avoid bad press which could impact future sales. And it is often less expensive to settle out of court for $1 million than pay a gaggle of attorneys $5 million or more over the course of many years to get through one suit which they may or may not win.
drinkthat corporate P.R. kool aid, that is a nice explaination to pretend they aren't responsible, have you ever noticed that practically no company has ever publicly admitted liability, I guess you just feel that they are all perfect angels, you really don't think they settle because they knwo they will lose in court (even though the corporations usually have MUCH deeped pockets to defend then the accuser)
also most of these agreements require the accuser to remain silent about the ordeal so the company doesn't look bad for what they did.
Quote:
Screw republicans. I'm not one, I don't belong to the party, and they don't matter to me. Nor do their bills. My objective is not to remove culpability from businesses if they genuinely do something wrong. Far from it. My objective is to reduce culpability from businesses if consumers do something stupid or illegal. This will reduce everyone's costs.
that contradicts with what you support, If a consumer does something stupid or illegal we have COURTS for that, no tort reform is needed
Quote:
This is a little muddled, but I'll take a stab at it. There's a balance between direct amounts and subjective amounts. The former might be based on lost wages, the latter based on the probability of retaining a job or reacquiring employment. I'm OK with leaving that up to a judge. But when a 25-year-old 7-11 employee making minimum wage slips on a slurpee spill, breaks a leg, and sues her employer for $100 million AND GETS IT that's freakin' outrageous IMO. The leg will heal and she can resume working in time.
and when have they, or is this just a typical made up republican argument for tort reform?
Quote:
Take a look at my post about Jim Alesi (either in this thread or another related to health care). That's precisely the sort of nonsensical crap I'd like to see eliminated.
and that would solve nothing, all tort reform bills have been made to protect big businesses, not consumers or the little people
Quote:
It's clear we agree reform is necessary, but we differ on the methods that should be used to go about it. I advocate less government, less incentive to jack rates up, and a free-market solution. You advocate more intrusive government, tougher regulations, etc.
no, you advocate things that have been tried and failed, I advocate things that work well (maybe not perfectly) in other countries
Quote:
Obamacare is an extension (a mighty big one!) of government involvement in an ostensibly private industry. I guarantee nationalizing the health care industry will not improve it or make it cheaper.
you aren't aggreeing with me there. Nationalizing health care would be FAR cheaper and we know that for a fact based on looking at the rest of the developed world. I am NOT saying it is the best solution but that your claim of not being cheaper is absurd.
Linear Mode
