The Democrats on Health Care

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

• Lawsuit abuse affects all Americans on different levels.

Any data on this?

• 80% of Americans say personal injury attorneys take too much of their clients' winnings.

Opinion.

• 76% of Americans believe medical liability lawsuits threaten access to quality healthcare for families.

Opinion.

• 74% of Americans describe medical liability issue as crisis or major problem.

Opinion

• By 61% to 22% margin, Americans say lawsuits against doctors result in wealthy lawyers rather than improved quality of care for patients.

Opinion.

• Lawsuit costs passed on to consumers add up to nearly $721 per year for every person in America today.

Did you do the math on this number?

• Because of litigation fears, 79% of doctors said they had ordered more tests than they would based only on professional judgment of what is medically needed.

So, the doctors are admitting to unnecessary procedures?

• It takes at least a year to resolve most lawsuits, and delays of three to five years are not uncommon. Unfortunately, injured people with legitimate claims can wait years before their cases go to trial.

Source?

• An estimated $50 billion per year is spent on unnecessary test procedures designed only to guard doctors and hospitals against malpractice claims.

Source?

• Almost half of the money spent by physician insurers goes towards defending cases that ultimately are closed without compensation paid to the claimant.

Source?



Whoa, hold on: go back and read what you wrote before you offered this.

Try actually reading the artcles I posted. And I do not need to go back and read anything. There is nothing inconsistent. I apparently do not need to provide any kind of a source according to your standard. You seem to think that you have "established" that Rush's statements end up on this board but feel no need to provide a source your self. So based on your standard I have done more to "establish" my point than you do. Seems I am pretty rock solid then.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I am afraid it will have to wait until after the 2008 election before Universal Health Care is given any serious chance, but once the Democrats have control of both the Congress and the White House, things may start to change. :thumbs:

 

[Alcott]

Wonder how the non-middle-aged-white residents did vs. their British counterparts.....
But aren't you the least bit curious as to why they are seemingly healthier? Do you think that the current system is working?

Maybe if I thought I had to wear a tie to herd sheep, used a walking stick with my artificial hip joint [which this "ineffecient" health care system made it possible for me to walk again], and always wore a bowler when outside to protect against the sun's lousy deadly radiation around here, compared to a latitude like in UK, I might be healthier too.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Try actually reading the artcles I posted.

Uh, I did read the article.

And I do not need to go back and read anything. There is nothing inconsistent.

Oh, okay. How convenient for you that you don't have to go back and read anything. Perhaps that is why you seemingly have difficulty answering questions.

I apparently do not need to provide any kind of a source according to your standard.

Where did I write this? Perhaps you could stop with this and actually answer my questions if you are going to bother replying to me.

You seem to think that you have "established" that Rush's statements end up on this board but feel no need to provide a source your self.

I don't merely think so, I know it. Perhaps you have forgotten that I listen to Rush Limbaugh. This isn't a case of making a claim: it is a case of hearing Rush say it on the radio, then reading it in some of the discussions on this board. Do you listen to Rush? If you do, then you know it to be true.

So based on your standard I have done more to "establish" my point than you do. Seems I am pretty rock solid then.

Claiming something in perpetuity does not constitute truth, and you know it. You haven't established anything. When you don't agree with a source, you simply ignore it. When someone doesn't agree with your source, you simply tell that person to read what you posted.

How convenient for you.

BTW, did you notice my last statement before you offered this?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Maybe if I thought I had to wear a tie to herd sheep, used a walking stick with my artificial hip joint [which this "ineffecient" health care system made it possible for me to walk again], and always wore a bowler when outside to protect against the sun's lousy deadly radiation around here, compared to a latitude like in UK, I might be healthier too.

:laugh:
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, that was hilarious.

Hope all is well,
BiR

 

[carpro]

They don't have a clue, BIR.

Some of us aren't looking for a free ride, either.:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

No. You then assign people to be doctors. Scary stuff.

And then the government decides who gets treated for what based on their opinion of who's chances of survival is best.

We can all watch our parents die a little sooner when the government won't authorize treatment because they're so old and weak and...

useless.

Maybe we'll even be some of those lucky old folks. Thank God for the government.

 

[Dragoon68]

They don't have a clue, BIR.

We have more than a clue! We can effectively predict what universal health care through the federal government would be like based on all the existing government programs that cost so much, waste so much, have become entitlements, come with lots of strings, show favor to one group verses another, become political weapons, etc. Yes, we have a clue for sure!

 

[Ps104_33]

I am afraid it will have to wait until after the 2008 election before Universal Health Care is given any serious chance, but once the Democrats have control of both the Congress and the White House, things may start to change. :thumbs:

"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." H.L. Menken

 

[Dragoon68]

"For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." H.L. Menken

I'll add that every such solution begets yet another problem leading to another solution hence the endless growth of meddling government.

 

[Aaron]

Think about how much it used to cost to make a long distance phone call. The government-propped up monopoly was expensive! Now...thanks to competition and free enterprise, it's much cheaper to call cross-country now than it was before.

Being intimately aquainted with the 1984 court-ordered divestiture of the Bell System, I say "pish tosh" to your argument because it isn't anywhere close to the truth. It was one of the most flagrant impositions of socialism in North America next to FDR's New Deal. It ripped large chunks of a network away from the organization that financed and built it and gave it away to Johnny-come-lately's. Long distance rates did go down, but so did the quality of service, and the cost of local service skyrocketed.

Other than this glaring innaccuracy, I quite agree with your post.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Being intimately aquainted with the 1984 court-ordered divestiture of the Bell System, I say "pish tosh" to your argument because it isn't anywhere close to the truth. It was one of the most flagrant impositions of socialism in North America next to FDR's New Deal. It ripped large chunks of a network away from the organization that financed and built it and gave it away to Johnny-come-lately's. Long distance rates did go down, but so did the quality of service, and the cost of local service skyrocketed.

Other than this glaring innaccuracy, I quite agree with your post.

I worked at AT&T before, during, and after the divestiture, and don't totally agree with you at all. Long distance rates DID go down dramatically, to the point where it doesn't matter if you call across the street or across the country. The argument is not that AT&T financed and built a network by itself. It was with monopoly generated ratepayer funds. The Bell System had a regulated monopoly with a guaranteed rate of return. One could argue that without open access by competitors to that network, no competition would ever ensue, due to the large up front costs to replicate the network. If competition were to ever take hold, something had to happen. So first, AT&T built the network with monopoly dollars, and after unbundling of network elements, the Baby Bells made money on it again with wholesale agreements.

I see Verizon and the new AT&T rebuilding the old system, and to some degree there were bad outcomes. But I also don't think innovations like DSL would have occurred under the Bell System. I also remember when a T-1 was only for internal Bell System use. No customer would, or could, get one.

 

[Dragoon68]

Notice how much of your local telephone bill is for taxes.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Notice how much of your local telephone bill is for taxes.

Yep, even if you haven't used the phone you still get charged the tax and access fees.

 

[LadyEagle]

10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:30 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

[Dragoon68]

Yep, even if you haven't used the phone you still get charged the tax and access fees.

I can, however, make long distance telephone calls to anywhere in the USA for 2.5 cents or less per minute and to Asia for 8.7 cents per minute all day long with no additional charges including taxes at with crystal clear service.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

I worked at AT&T before, during, and after the divestiture, and don't totally agree with you at all. Long distance rates DID go down dramatically, to the point where it doesn't matter if you call across the street or across the country. The argument is not that AT&T financed and built a network by itself. It was with monopoly generated ratepayer funds. The Bell System had a regulated monopoly with a guaranteed rate of return. One could argue that without open access by competitors to that network, no competition would ever ensue, due to the large up front costs to replicate the network. If competition were to ever take hold, something had to happen. So first, AT&T built the network with monopoly dollars, and after unbundling of network elements, the Baby Bells made money on it again with wholesale agreements.

I see Verizon and the new AT&T rebuilding the old system, and to some degree there were bad outcomes. But I also don't think innovations like DSL would have occurred under the Bell System. I also remember when a T-1 was only for internal Bell System use. No customer would, or could, get one.

Well, I too was intimately related with divestiture having started with Bell Labs in 1976. I believe most of pre-AT&T's problems were caused by the extreme restrictions placed upon it by regulation. Cellular wireless was invented by Bell Labs but first introduced in Japan because of over-regulation.

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed per previous notice. LE