Actually no healthcare has done that. If there was free healthcare then all those poor people wouldn't have to use the emergency rooms as their only source of healthcare.
Actually no healthcare has done that. If there was free healthcare then all those poor people wouldn't have to use the emergency rooms as their only source of healthcare.
Malpractice insurance costs skyrocket
- ...Katz, who paid $26,000 per year since 1997, says he received quotes ranging from $42,000 to $129,000 from the few carriers operating in town. The quotes also included "nose insurance," which covers potential future claims for the previous policy period.
this is a HUGE issue in canada right now. some provinces are trying to move towards a two-teir system and people really really don't want it. people are so afraid of going to the hospital or not being able to take their baby to the hospital and having someone send them them away. i think a lot of it is that they don't understand how a two-teir system would work and all they think about is being turned away in the middle of the night with a sick child. i think another part of it has to do with canadians preferring to identify with europe and not america for whatever reason that might be.
also, not everything is fully covered in canada including dentists (0%), optometrists (depends on the province i think), glasses, prescriptions, some operations
and i am not saying i am for or against it, i am just telling you the popular opinon here right now.
Here is a quick study, need to find you the other ones I was looking at.
http://www.weissratings.com/MedicalMalpractice.pdf
The general gist of it is that capping malpractice does reduce the pay-out to those doing the suing, but it does absolutey nothing to lower insurance rates.
All free things get abused because people as a whole are greedy. As soon as we say healthcare is free everyone and their brother will be at the doctor's office everytime they cough. Why? Why not go, its free, doesn't cost a dime. Everyone constantly abusing these free services will drive up the cost of said services until it bankrupts the system. Look at Tennessee's attempts for a good example.
Government healthcare would simply lead to everyone receiving the same low-quailty care. I'd rather go into debt to receive top notch care from a doctor that is fairly compensated for his service than to receive "free" care from a doctor that knows no matter what he does, his check from the government is coming. As soon as you start talking about government employees you get into standardized pay scales. Where there is no incentive to perform any better than anyone else and there is virtually no punishment for being below average. This means any doctor with real talent would either a) not bother putting in the effort, or b) stay in private practice. If the good doctors stay private, then you people will whine again about the discrepency in service between the "free" care and the private care. The cycle will keep repeating until there's virtually a complete collapse of our best in the world care system.
You'll notice I keep referring to it as "free." That's because it isn't really free, someone is paying the bill. That being the taxpayers. Now I know people in California see no problem with taxing some people more than others just to redistribute that wealth to other people. I, on the other hand, see a big problem with repeatedly taking from group A to service group B.
From my linked study:
Caps did reduce the burden on insurers...
? In states with caps, the median payout between 1991 and 2002 was 15.7% lower
than the median in states without caps, despite the fact that many states did not
impose the caps until late in the 12-year period.
? Moreover, in states with caps, the payouts increased by 83.3% from 1991 to 2002,
while the rate of increase in states without caps was 127.9%.
But most insurers continued to increase premiums at a rapid pace, regardless of caps...
? In states with caps, the median annual premium went up by 48.2%, but,
surprisingly, in states without caps, the median annual premium increased at a
slower clip?by 35.9%.
? Among the states with caps, only 10.5% experienced flat or declining med mal
premiums. In contrast, among the states without caps, the record was actually
better: 18.7% experienced flat or declining premiums.
These counter-intuitive findings can lead to only one conclusion: There are other, far
more important factors driving the rise in med mal premiums than caps or med mal
payouts. These include:
? The medical inflation rate. In the 12-year period through 2002, medical costs rose
75%.
? The insurance business cycle. The property and casualty industry as a whole
suffered an unusually long 12-year ?soft? period in the insurance business cycle
through 1999, resulting in loose underwriting practices?not enough money in
premiums collected to cover anticipated claims. At the end of the cycle, in an
attempt to catch up, insurers began to tighten underwriting standards and raise
premium rates.
-The need to shore up reserves. Med mal insurers have been consistently underreserving
since 1997?to the tune of $4.6 billion through December 31, 2001.
The only way to shore up reserves is to increase premiums.
? A decline in investment income. With falling stock prices and declining interest
rates, investment income for the entire property/casualty industry fell 23% in
2001 compared to 2000, and then another 2.5% in 2002. Moreover, investment
income is particularly critical for lines of business like med mal where the
duration of claims payouts typically spans several years.
? Financial safety. Based on the Weiss Safety Ratings, we find that 34.4% of the
nation?s med mal insurers are vulnerable to financial difficulties (those with a
rating of D+ or lower), as compared to 23.9% of the property and casualty
industry as a whole. In order to restore their financial health, many med mal
insurers will remain under pressure to increase premiums despite new laws to cap
payouts.
? Supply and demand. The number of med mal carriers increased until 1997, but
has since fallen from 274 in that year to 247 in 2002. Moreover, in certain
regions and medical specialties, there is evidence that some med mal insurers
have pulled out or discontinued coverage.
Too true
The other thing I find funny is people that will vote against something that it is in their best interest to have, just in case they become millionaires one day and would have to pay taxes that fund it.
Med mal insurers have been consistently underreserving...
Gee, where did all the money go?
Now, who do you suppose ends up paying for this? Who ultimately is responsible for these rising costs?
...people that will vote against something that it is in their best interest to have...
I wish to hell we could have voted against the goddamned Social Security program. Every fvcking time your nanny government does something that's supposed to be "good for us", we take it up the ass! Guess what you can do with your lame ass National Health Care program?
Gee, where did all the money go?
Now, who do you suppose ends up paying for this? Who ultimately is responsible for these rising costs?
...people that will vote against something that it is in their best interest to have...
I wish to hell we could have voted against the goddamned Social Security program. Every fvcking time your nanny government does something that's supposed to be "good for us", we take it up the ass! Guess what you can do with your lame ass National Health Care program?
tH3 QUALITY OF CARE IS BAD EOUGH AS IT IS. i DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE WORSE. gOOD NIGHT IM GOONA GO PASS OUT
Come back with your views when you've been working for a living for about 10 years, and odds are you will have a different opinion.
Red, blue, purple, green, whatever, color doesn't matter to me. I come from a family of working people. Peope that work two jobs, work long hours, work weekends, basically, people who do what they have to do to get by. All I ask is that same kind of effort from everyone. If you want to help people with all your extra income, then donate it. I'm in full support of charities that provide services to people through voluntary contributions.Originally posted by: EtOH
Too true
The other thing I find funny is people that will vote against something that it is in their best interest to have, just in case they become millionaires one day and would have to pay taxes that fund it.
I'm about to say an evil word, but churches do wonderful jobs through their meal programs, shelters, counselling, etc. Any other charity you want to donate your money to, go right ahead. I donate my money to the causes I see fit, and you donate your money to what you believe in. That's how extra programs such as this healthcare idea should be funded.
What I find funniest is that you would rather see "free" healthcare for all before you see three free meals a day to everyone. I mean, people need to eat to live right? Without food people will die much faster than they would without healthcare. Shouldn't your primary objective then be to feed everyone? So why don't we institute government meal programs for all citizens. Then everyone can be gauranteed their loaf of bread a day. Just like in the mother country...
If they are poor for a legitimate reason, such as handicapped, (mentally or physically), they most certainly CAN get health care.
If they are poor because they are a crackhead or just too damn sorry to work, then maybe they can't, and honestly, they don't deserve it.
There's no way that a poor person goes without some sort of healthcare, unless they are too lazy or too stupid to do what it takes to get it from the government.
There are quite a few members of my wife's family that get governmental assistance for their healthcare, and some of them are even working and making okay money. (relatively speaking)
You are aptly named. Our healthcare system is the best on earth.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
tH3 QUALITY OF CARE IS BAD EOUGH AS IT IS. i DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD BE WORSE. gOOD NIGHT IM GOONA GO PASS OUT
MikeyIs4Dcats
Lifer
- Nov 5, 2001
- 18,366
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: Ornery
Med mal insurers have been consistently underreserving...
Gee, where did all the money go?
Now, who do you suppose ends up paying for this? Who ultimately is responsible for these rising costs?
...people that will vote against something that it is in their best interest to have...
I wish to hell we could have voted against the goddamned Social Security program. Every fvcking time your nanny government does something that's supposed to be "good for us", we take it up the ass! Guess what you can do with your lame ass National Health Care program?
I have no problems with reforming the health care industry. My problem is the ready, shoot, aim method. Some groups like to single out something as the only thing causing problems and aim for that. The same is true with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Almost all off it has problems and needs to be fixed, but if you are going to fix something follow the old rule "measure twice, cut once". Do a thourough investigation and actually fix it instead of just spouting retoric to get people pissed off and fighting (kind of like we are doing now).
National Healthcare should not be free, but it should be available to all without it costing hundreds of dollars a month for minimum coverage.
Social Security should be reformed, but just stopping the inflow of $ is going to cost Trillions of dollars in the short term. Do it slowly and methodically and you can do it without bleeding so much, there are about 50 years left before it dries up.
Take your time, do it right. Why bother if all you are going to do is yell at people and make a bigger mess.
EtOH
We got saddled with Social Security, and it's a stupid plan from start to present. Now, you aren't satisfied with that abortion of a program, you want to stick us with National Health care too! Sunuvabitch! How many times do we have to royally fvck shlt up before you learn?
I hope you support some things that were not in the constitution.... you know most of your rights are actually ammendments to it....
I believe there should at the very least be a minimum health care that all individuals recieve. Higher health care should be paid for. I dont have any health care and I hurt my back. It is 70$ just to be seen at an acute care center and I make "too much" money to qualify for medicade or whatever (200 a week.)
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,600
- 1,005
- 126
Yeah, I'd like to know how you define that. Are all these people dropping dead because they were 30 years old and had a hang nail that they didn't do anything about because they had no insurance and it became infected and killed them or was it some 80 year old, fat, cigarette whore who just didn't take care of him/herself kicking off of natural causes that might have been prevented for a year or two with thousands of dollars of medical care?
Where are they putting all these countless bodies you cite? Mass graves in Iowa? Why hasn't this been reported in the media?
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Whatever we want is a right. All it takes is a law to pass.
I think people should have the right to anything nessesary to sustain life. This includes food, shelter and healthcare. Course I don't think anything should be free.. Work can always be found that needs doing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter