Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[Lion]

I have wonder a bit about that. A quick look provided no quick answer. The statistics are all over the place, and do not always include hard numbers. Although I found a reported 60% of cases dropped but even that has a cost of $18,000 per case. 90% of cases that go to trial are in favor of the defendant with an average cost of $100,000.
"According to the American Medical Association, defensive medicine increases health systems costs by between $84 and $151 billion each year" An incomplete rendering of potential case is in excess of 1,000,000, that would come to about $47 billion per year. Plus the savings on "Defensive Medicine". Resulting in between $131 to $198 billion per year at the low end.

I did some reading on defensive medicine, and the estimates are quite wide, ranging from $25 billion to $200 billion a year. Taking the low number of $25 billion, it is still a considerable amount.

Tort reform, I'm assuming is to eliminate the frivilous lawsuits, but how many of those lawsuits are actually frivilous? Obama has said that this would affect health care costs by a fraction of the amount, even if so, it should be looked into.

The $47 billion you mentioned that goes into the savings, that's assuming 100% of those lawsuits have no merit. What are the most common cases of these lawsuits?


Thank you for the research, I didn't know about defensive medicine before.



Btw, previous question still stands, how would you go about tort reform? (To all, not just Duncan, and please no vague, 2-3 line response, but something that can be used for most cases)

[steelish]

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

[Lion]

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

If I'm insured, you can't sue me for pain and suffering, but if I'm not, you can? How does that make sense?

[steelish]

If I'm insured, you can't sue me for pain and suffering, but if I'm not, you can? How does that make sense?

Unlike health insurance, that's what the car insurance companies are for.

In the case of an accident, the insurance company will "settle" a claim with the other driver's insurance company - once done, although a law suit can be filed , it rarely is because of the difficulty in winning such a case...after all, you've settled a claim via your insurance companies which, in effect, says that you are happy with the amount of $$ already received and had signed paperwork agreeing to "leave it at that".

How do I know this??? Well, during a rainstorm I once hydroplaned through a stop sign in an F150 pickup. I was only going 25, but the person who t-boned me was going almost 50. My truck and his car was totaled. I was at fault (of course) for "failure to stop and causing an accident". In his car was his wife and unrestrained 5 year old girl. The wife received a broken leg, the girl had a concussion, the man had a broken wrist. (He and his wife were out of work for a bit of time). Our insurance companies settled. I asked my insurance company if he could sue me, I was told no because he had signed paperwork (a contract, in a way) stating that he was ok with the amount of the settlement. That occurred over 10 years ago. I've never been sued.

If you don't have that protection of a car insurance company...I can come directly after you! My insurance company can file the suit on my behalf.

[Lion]

Unlike health insurance, that's what the car insurance companies are for.

In the case of an accident, the insurance company will "settle" a claim with the other driver's insurance company - once done, although a law suit can be filed , it rarely is because of the difficulty in winning such a case...after all, you've settled a claim via your insurance companies which, in effect, says that you are happy with the amount of $$ already received and had signed paperwork agreeing to "leave it at that".

How do I know this??? Well, during a rainstorm I once hydroplaned through a stop sign in an F150 pickup. I was only going 25, but the person who t-boned me was going almost 50. My truck and his car was totaled. I was at fault (of course) for "failure to stop and causing an accident". In his car was his wife and unrestrained 5 year old girl. The wife received a broken leg, the girl had a concussion, the man had a broken wrist. (He and his wife were out of work for a bit of time). Our insurance companies settled. I asked my insurance company if he could sue me, I was told no because he had signed paperwork (a contract, in a way) stating that he was ok with the amount of the settlement. That occurred over 10 years ago. I've never been sued.

If you don't have that protection of a car insurance company...I can come directly after you! My insurance company can file the suit on my behalf.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Perhaps my comparison could've been better. Essentially, what I was asking earlier is that if you hurt someone, unintentionally but through your own negligance, that causes them pain and suffering (but something that they can recover from entirely), do you think it is right for them to sue you? (In addition to the money they lost because of the incident).

[steelish]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Perhaps my comparison could've been better. Essentially, what I was asking earlier is that if you hurt someone, unintentionally but through your own negligance, that causes them pain and suffering (but something that they can recover from entirely), do you think it is right for them to sue you? (In addition to the money they lost because of the incident).

I think it's right that they should be compensated for in some way. That's why car and homeowners insurance are good things. Too bad health insurance doesn't work the same way. It's a whole different ball game.

[SadisticNature]

In Canada you can't sue for pain and suffering, but you can sue for any lost labor and medical costs. I know because a mall didn't put out a wet floor sign and my mom didn't notice the floor was wet, slipped and broke her ankle. She ended up getting a settlement (which is why they can't sue you, your insurance company settles the case (or as part of settlement makes it a condition that they will not sue if there isn't a case yet)).

In the claim she filed for compensation for time off work, and for chores that she normally did that she had to pass on to others (I ended up taking over the laundry because I was at home at the time and she had a lot of trouble with stairs), but if I wasn't home she would have had to hire someone to do it. We ended up settling because the offer was better than dealing with lots of court costs plus the risk of losing.

[SadisticNature]

How about this? Your surgery goes fine. No complications. But during the surgery you woke up on the table during the operation. You decide to sue everyone you can get your hands on!

Frivolous or not?

Most people would find it incredibly traumatic to wake up in the middle of surgery and see themselves cut open. That doesn't even begin to cover the pain and sensations one might experience if they had general but no local anesthetic and woke up during a procedure. This is certainly an accident, but its probably akin to some forms of torture in terms of the level of trauma. Chances are good they are suing for things like the cost to see a psychiatrist about it, or lost wages because they can't sleep at night and don't function at work. I certainly think this isn't something that most people just shrug off and have not effect their life.

Do you think it would be fair if you woke up during surgery, experienced these horrific sensations you have nightmares about, the lack of sleep causes you to lose your job, you are seeing someone about it to try and get back to normal functioning and the result of all this is that you lost a lot of money in both salary and treatment?

Keep in mind that the most likely reason for someone to wake up during surgery is either improper dosing (miscalculating weight for instance) or severe delays (complications in the procedure and no addition to the anesthetic or other accommodations), so chances are good this is negligence.

As for suing everyone, its a common legal tactic to sue everyone so that attempts to pass the blame fail. If you sue just the doctor they blame the hospital, if you sue just the hospital they blame the doctor, if you sue the doctor and the hospital they blame the drug company, etc. I don't judge people for making strategically optimal decisions in the legal field, after all law and justice are often very different things.

[SadisticNature]

As long as you are an insured driver...NOPE!

They can sue you but the insurance company is liable for the verdict so you won't have to pay it. Generally speaking the insurance company prefers to settle these cases because its more convenient to their clients and is often better for them financially. Victims will generally agree to settlements because they often have significant costs and don't want to struggle with medical and legal bills in the hope of a payout several years down the road.

Most insurance companies require you to sign over all negotiating privileges as a condition of the insurance. So you wouldn't be allowed to dispute things like who was at fault with the settlement, and they could settle 'on your behalf' without letting you know any details of the settlement.

The insurance company doesn't mean the lawsuits don't exist it just means it won't be you who pays them.

[DuncanONeil]

In the example I used the only thing that occurred with the patient was they were conscious, felt no pain or other physical discomfort.
Thereby is there grounds to sue?
The auto accident is a poor example.

I understand your point, but it's rather vague. If I accidentally hit you while driving, causing some injuries that you fully recover from, should you be allowed to sue me?

I'd imagine it's your right to sue me for the time lost at work, extra expenses, but what about pain and suffering? People who wake up at the table are in pain, and that's the point of the lawsuit. Can you put a number figure to pain? Should you?

[steelish]

I have heard recently that Canada is contemplating Euthanasia as part of their National Healthcare system. To any Canadians participating in this thread I ask, Is this true? Also, if this is true, how do you feel about it and do you have any fears of the government eventually "making the decision" for people who are incapable of deciding for themselves that they would like an end to life and have no family to turn to?

[Seroquel]

Could you link to an article about that? It sounds interesting. As for your question I have to say I have a hard time imagining any government would want to take that decision into their own hands. Can you even imagine the kind of legal problems that would cause if they made a mistake? I don't think it's realistic to assume that euthanasia will be offered to people who aren't capable of making the decision, it would be a nightmare for the government to handle.

[steelish]

It is Bill C-407 which was originally proposed and then postponed until February 2010. Here is the link.

[DuncanONeil]

Once the law is on the books there is no telling what can be done.
As written does not permit the holder of a medical Power of Attorney to make the decision, unless they have no interest in the death of the person. How many people are going to give a Power of Attorney to people they do not know??

I have heard recently that Canada is contemplating Euthanasia as part of their National Healthcare system. To any Canadians participating in this thread I ask, Is this true? Also, if this is true, how do you feel about it and do you have any fears of the government eventually "making the decision" for people who are incapable of deciding for themselves that they would like an end to life and have no family to turn to?

[steelish]

Once the law is on the books there is no telling what can be done.

True. Then progressives "tweak" the laws until they can do whatever they feel needs to be done to keep the costs of their various programs down.

[DuncanONeil]

True. Then progressives "tweak" the laws until they can do whatever they feel needs to be done to keep the costs of their various programs down.

You do realize that the Progressive believe the Constitution to be an impediment to their platforms!!

[DuncanONeil]

Just took a look at the President's plan. Through the use of his "transparancy" mandate.
There is nothing posted other than a real pretty wish list. Not one bit of "language". Although there appears an intent to maintain the so called exchange program. Please be careful the exchange program is merely Government Insurance under another name.
If the Government says;

• What you have to cover
• What you can charge
• Has a board, under theri control, that decides what procedures are "approved"

This is Government run!

[steelish]

Just took a look at the President's plan. Through the use of his "transparancy" mandate.
There is nothing posted other than a real pretty wish list. Not one bit of "language". Although there appears an intent to maintain the so called exchange program. Please be careful the exchange program is merely Government Insurance under another name.
If the Government says;

• What you have to cover
• What you can charge
• Has a board, under theri control, that decides what procedures are "approved"

This is Government run!

There are too many ways for the government to interfere into individual's lives under the plan. I am completely against it.

[steelish]

You do realize that the Progressive believe the Constitution to be an impediment to their platforms!!

Of course they do! The constitution is built on the belief of Natural Law. When we are born, we are individuals (which gives us the right to pursue happiness). We have life (therefore we have a right to live) and essentially, we have freedom (which gives us the right to that).

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

We are not born with our bank account (at least, most of us aren't). We are not born owning a home, in command of a health care plan, with our own car and a job. Those are things that as we grow, we earn by working for them.

Health care is not a right. It is something that is purchased, therefore it is something that each individual must work to purchase if that is their choice.

[MMI]

Health care is not a right, it is a mark of a caring and compassionate society.

Few advanced societies - I know only of one - prefer to sell care and compassion at inflated prices to those with the means to pay for it rather than distribute it evenly and fund it fairly.

[steelish]

Health care is not a right, it is a mark of a caring and compassionate society.

Few advanced societies - I know only of one - prefer to sell care and compassion at inflated prices to those with the means to pay for it rather than distribute it evenly and fund it fairly.

So...what I am reading is that America is an uncaring and contemptuous society that kicks its "poor" and underprivileged to the curb.

This couldn't be any further from the truth. I gather from the post written that America will continue to be viewed that way (by you) unless we adopt a National Healthcare system. Color me funny, but I just can't help but feel you will still look down your nose at America, regardless.

Americans have nothing against a fairly funded health care system. We have nothing against a reform program that works at reducing costs - whether it be tort reform or some other means. What the majority of us are against is a government run healthcare system.

One of our best friends just got back from Canada. He asked his girlfriend to buy bottles of Advil and bring them up to Canada with her. Why? Because he can't buy Advil right off the shelf there. It's restricted. He has to go to the doctor, get a prescription, then visit the pharmacist for a simple pain reliever. It's nuts. That's just a small sample of the red tape that has to be dealt with in a government run healthcare system.

[MMI]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

[steelish]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

And you're thinking that ALL Americans on a government run program will receive the best? If you think state-funded health care won't be good, what makes you think that federally run health care will be?

Another question...who is able to afford a computer, internet access and time to post in these threads, yet can't afford to buy insurance? (just sayin'...) That to me is the same as someone lamenting that they can't afford to feed their kids, yet they have a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, and drink like a fish. Priorities need to be considered. If things got so bad for me that I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford necessities...I would.

In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

Our worst is none at all. Anything is better than nothing.

[DuncanONeil]

I just found this!
“The ‘war on drugs’ has turned into a war on doctors and the legal drugs they prescribe and the suffering patients who need the drugs to attempt anything approaching a normal life,” said Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

On Monday, Sept. 29, AAPS spoke at a news conference sponsored by the Pain Relief Network to announce their support for William Hurwitz, MD, of McLean, Virginia, who has been indicted, imprisoned, and had all assets seized for prescribing legal pain relief approved by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

The result of prosecutions such as those against Dr. Hurwitz and more than 30 others tracked by AAPS is that doctors are afraid to prescribe opioids, and patients can’t get the drugs they so desperately need. “Physicians are being threatened, impoverished, delicensed, and imprisoned for prescribing in good faith with the intention of relieving pain,” said Ms. Serkes. “And their patients have become the collateral damage in this trumped-up war.”

Some patients require very large doses, sometimes literally hundreds of pills in each prescription – a number that may seem alarming to people unfamiliar with current treatment standards in pain management. Other patients report that they have lied about being heroin addicts in order to get pain medication at methadone clinics.

The situation has become so critical that AAPS has issued a serious warning to doctors:

“If you’re thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate -- DON’T. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family.” (See www.aapsonline.org)

“If this continues, pain patients will be back in the Dark Ages of ‘pain clinics’ that basically told the patients they had to learn to ‘live with the pain’ – except possibly if they had cancer and then they wouldn’t have to live with it for very long,” said Ms. Serkes.

“Prosecutors hell-bent on targeting career-making, high-publicity cases on the backs of patients and doctors,” said Ms. Serkes. “Recent actions show prosecutors have little concern about the trail of destruction left by their actions as patients face crippling pain and gut-wrenching withdrawal.” For example, "(American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.)

[SadisticNature]

And you're thinking that ALL Americans on a government run program will receive the best? If you think state-funded health care won't be good, what makes you think that federally run health care will be?

Another question...who is able to afford a computer, internet access and time to post in these threads, yet can't afford to buy insurance? (just sayin'...) That to me is the same as someone lamenting that they can't afford to feed their kids, yet they have a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, and drink like a fish. Priorities need to be considered. If things got so bad for me that I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford necessities...I would.



Our worst is none at all. Anything is better than nothing.

If you're in a decent area you can get a usable desktop for $200 US and internet for $10/month. If you go for more expensive options you're talking $1000 US and $50/month at most. Even buying a new computer every year (not suggesting anyone actually does) that's cheaper than healthcare.

Also for a lot of people internet is the single best value for the entertainment dollar. If one chooses to cut costs on inexpensive entertainment at home, one will often find themselves going for more expensive entertainment elsewhere.

As for cell phones, a lot of people have them instead of a home phone, particularly if they do contract labor. A plumber or electrician who gave up their cell phone would lose a lot of work. There are certainly some for whom these are luxuries but with a cheap plan and low usage they aren't much more expensive than a home phone, and have replaced the home phone with the younger generation. And there are those who have no clue about money, couldn't budget for their lives and end up throwing away money on trash and going hungry at the end of the month, but there are probably a lot fewer of this kind of people than you think.

As for the actual bill, it isn't about the government taking over the health care system, it is about the government regulating the health care system. The specific regulations in question are actually less stringent then the Federal Broadcasting Standards. I don't think Americans have problems with government regulation that led to what many would consider the best broadcasting television system in the world, and I don't think Americans would argue that every TV station in this country was owned by the Government, even though they are subject to fairly stringent regulations that they meet as conditions of their broadcasting license.

Similarly, the government wants some regulations dealing with problems in the medical sector most importantly the fact that Americans pay more than any other country in the world for medicare and don't get a correspondingly high standard of care. With the rates that Americans pay your system should be leading in almost every category, instead you are doing poorly in many, while leading in a few.

I happen to live in a country (Canada) that has public health care and it has been considered successful. Almost everyone in our country is in favor of it, and despite a few minor problems now and then I doubt it will ever change. Even the right wing parties would not campaign against it as much of their base views it as the right of any Canadian. We are often critical of specific decisions in that system, but the system as a whole works. That being said its not your system, and its not what Obama is proposing.

[SadisticNature]

I just found this!
“The ‘war on drugs’ has turned into a war on doctors and the legal drugs they prescribe and the suffering patients who need the drugs to attempt anything approaching a normal life,” said Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

On Monday, Sept. 29, AAPS spoke at a news conference sponsored by the Pain Relief Network to announce their support for William Hurwitz, MD, of McLean, Virginia, who has been indicted, imprisoned, and had all assets seized for prescribing legal pain relief approved by the Virginia Board of Medicine.

The result of prosecutions such as those against Dr. Hurwitz and more than 30 others tracked by AAPS is that doctors are afraid to prescribe opioids, and patients can’t get the drugs they so desperately need. “Physicians are being threatened, impoverished, delicensed, and imprisoned for prescribing in good faith with the intention of relieving pain,” said Ms. Serkes. “And their patients have become the collateral damage in this trumped-up war.”

Some patients require very large doses, sometimes literally hundreds of pills in each prescription – a number that may seem alarming to people unfamiliar with current treatment standards in pain management. Other patients report that they have lied about being heroin addicts in order to get pain medication at methadone clinics.

The situation has become so critical that AAPS has issued a serious warning to doctors:

“If you’re thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate -- DON’T. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family.” (See www.aapsonline.org)

“If this continues, pain patients will be back in the Dark Ages of ‘pain clinics’ that basically told the patients they had to learn to ‘live with the pain’ – except possibly if they had cancer and then they wouldn’t have to live with it for very long,” said Ms. Serkes.

“Prosecutors hell-bent on targeting career-making, high-publicity cases on the backs of patients and doctors,” said Ms. Serkes. “Recent actions show prosecutors have little concern about the trail of destruction left by their actions as patients face crippling pain and gut-wrenching withdrawal.” For example, "(American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.)

The US war on drugs is the single worst criminal policy in a westernized democracy in the past 30 years. I'm not surprised its sinking to new lows.

[SadisticNature]

So...what I am reading is that America is an uncaring and contemptuous society that kicks its "poor" and underprivileged to the curb.

This couldn't be any further from the truth. I gather from the post written that America will continue to be viewed that way (by you) unless we adopt a National Healthcare system. Color me funny, but I just can't help but feel you will still look down your nose at America, regardless.

Americans have nothing against a fairly funded health care system. We have nothing against a reform program that works at reducing costs - whether it be tort reform or some other means. What the majority of us are against is a government run healthcare system.

One of our best friends just got back from Canada. He asked his girlfriend to buy bottles of Advil and bring them up to Canada with her. Why? Because he can't buy Advil right off the shelf there. It's restricted. He has to go to the doctor, get a prescription, then visit the pharmacist for a simple pain reliever. It's nuts. That's just a small sample of the red tape that has to be dealt with in a government run healthcare system.

I don't think America is an uncaring or contemptuous society but I do think it choose a route with health care that has been a disaster, and is getting worse as costs skyrocket. No one is accusing America of kicking its poor to the curb intentionally or with malice aforethought, but the fact is if one is poor and doesn't have health care in the US one is going to be screwed over if one gets sick.

I also don't think its a with us or against us situation where people are looking down their noses at the US. My girlfriend spent a lot of time in the US as a child, and we both go their on vacation, if I didn't have good times there I wouldn't be going there. We may not agree with what your definition of American values are, but for some perspective consider that Republicans and Democrats can't agree on what American values are.

Regarding the Advil story, I know for a fact that Advil is over the counter here, I've bought it plenty of times without any prescription or appointment so I'm not sure what your friend is talking about.

[SadisticNature]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.

It is Bill C-407 which was originally proposed and then postponed until February 2010. Here is the link.

[steelish]

As for the actual bill, it isn't about the government taking over the health care system, it is about the government regulating the health care system. The specific regulations in question are actually less stringent then the Federal Broadcasting Standards. I don't think Americans have problems with government regulation that led to what many would consider the best broadcasting television system in the world, and I don't think Americans would argue that every TV station in this country was owned by the Government, even though they are subject to fairly stringent regulations that they meet as conditions of their broadcasting license.

Oh! So you've read the entire currently proposed bill from cover to cover and know exactly what the U.S. Government is planning.

I happen to live in a country (Canada) that has public health care and it has been considered successful. Almost everyone in our country is in favor of it, and despite a few minor problems now and then I doubt it will ever change. Even the right wing parties would not campaign against it as much of their base views it as the right of any Canadian. We are often critical of specific decisions in that system, but the system as a whole works. That being said its not your system, and its not what Obama is proposing.

You're right...it's not what Obama is proposing.

[steelish]

This bill is a private members bill. In the Canadian system of government, any member of the house of commons can propose a private members bill, but in order to bring it to debate or get it on the agenda they need to have a certain level of support.

Here the bill has been proposed by a leftist member of one of the most left wing parties in the Country, and was approved for debate by the most right-wing party in the country. Basically it has been approved for debate solely so people can take public recorded stands against it in the house.

It isn't a serious representation of the values of our country. As for all the press, extreme bills make for good press even when they have no realistic support.

Also to provide perspective:

None of the papers you linked are considered neutral or bipartisan. Few of them are even mainstream papers. The ones that are the most right-leaning of the mainstream papers in the city from which that paper is from. There are also some factual errors in some of the articles, and a lot of hyperbole about the implications.

Lastly Canada doesn't have a national health system, we have a federal government that gives money to the provinces and territories, each of which provides their own health system, all of which meet certain national conditions.

So what you're saying is that IF by some miracle it passed, you aren't concerned in any way?