Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 460
  1. #101
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Sorry, I can't quite let go the fact that tort reform should be a major part of this issue. Maybe where you're from it's not an issue,but it does seem to have a profound effect, at least here.

    "The cumulative effect of medical malpractice claims on the health care system is staggering. A 2007 study by the Pacific Research Institute estimated that 3.4 million Americans have been added to the rolls of the uninsured because of medical liability concerns. According to several estimates, 10 cents of every dollar spent on health care can be attributed to the costs of medical liability and defensive medicine. That is as much as is spent on prescription drugs — an expenditure that actually treats patients."

    Here's the link if you're interested
    The PRI ranks states for businesses based on which states businesses can go to and kill, mame, injure and defraud citizens without being held accountable. To the PRI, every lawsuit brought by an individual against a business (or professional, like a doctor) is a "frivolous" lawsuit. They don't give you any stats on how the judicial system is clogged with lawsuits among and between businesses, especially the federal courts. Those same businesses that bankroll tort reform efforts wouldn't think twice before suing another business, or taking your *ss to court. There's quite a lot of hypocracy going on.

    One of the most beloved legal minds in our state (he's a professor and author of the "bible" on our state's evidence law) was a featured speaker at our state bar's annual meeting this summer. His first comment was to ask the audience, "How many of you are making a living on filing frivolous lawsuits?" Think about it. For every frivolous lawsuit a lawyer files he or she is subject to monetary sanctions. No truly frivolous lawsuit survives a motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss must be filed within 30days of getting served with the complaint. A lawyer files a frivolous lawsuit and spends up to $500 or more on the filing fee and then after the defendant is served, the defendant's lawyer files a motion to dismiss, the suit is thrown out in less than 60 days and the lawyer who files the suit is hit with sanctions. This same lawyer keeps filing frivolous lawsuits and is sanctioned each time and then he is turned into the state bar and his license is suspended. Yeah, it sounds like you can make a lot of money filing frivolous lawsuits.

    Frankly, I've been practicing law for 11 years and I've NEVER seen a frivolous lawsuit, don't know anybody who has filed a frivolous lawsuit and don't know anybody who has defended a frivolous lawsuit.

    Mark, you say you want to eliminate partisanship and politics from the healthcare debate but all you site is partisan bunk. Like I said, lawyers have ignored this public relations crap for too long and have taken a huge hit. Our public reputation has suffered and much of it is "our" own doing (e.g., tasteless advertising). But these "think tanks" and "grass roots" anti-lawsuit "abuse" groups have sprung up on the national and state levels well funded by big business with an agenda. My challenge to you is find a study without an agenda behind it. We have to cite the facts from our state's administrative office of courts everytime the "grass roots" tort reform group in our state throws out made-up numbers. It's propaganda warfare. Someone has to be on it 24/7. People take the bait, hook, line and sinker. Hell, I had to call into a sports talk radio show one time because they were going through the made-up list of Stella award cases on the air as if they were true! (see http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp)

    After landing Mercedes, Hyundia and Thyssen Krupp plants, our state was ranked in the top 5 for business by an unbiased source. Right away, our own state's anti-lawsuit "abuse" group came out with its rankings saying we were 49th just ahead of Mississippi. It was believable by the masses because Alabama is always close to last in everything that matters like education and just ahead of Mississippi. You know it's bullsh*t when the PRI ranks Mississippi tops for business because of its tort reform efforts, but its sister state's anti-lawsuit "abuse" group says it's worst.

    The last real study done on medical errors found that on average 98,000 patients a year DIE because of medical errors in this country - the USA - which was the worst among "western" nations. Stop medical errors and you will stop medical malpractice lawsuits (and save lives as an incidental benefit).

  2. #102
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    No-one disputes that errors are made and redress is not due, but at some point protecting oneself from "possibilites" becomes more of the goal of the doctor than treating the patient.

    "The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.

    About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons."

    I'm pretty sure these costs do add up...

    And, as far as the careful vetting of malpractice cases, how can this be justified?

    "A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 analyzed more than 1,400 malpractice claims and found that in almost 40 percent of cases, no medical error was involved"

    So, it looks to me there's a bit of a "hail mary" approach to a lot of these lawsuits.

    Here's the teaser article. There's a link to the full study in there.

  3. #103
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    No-one disputes that errors are made and redress is not due, but at some point protecting oneself from "possibilites" becomes more of the goal of the doctor than treating the patient.

    "The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.

    About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons."

    I'm pretty sure these costs do add up...

    And, as far as the careful vetting of malpractice cases, how can this be justified?

    "A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 analyzed more than 1,400 malpractice claims and found that in almost 40 percent of cases, no medical error was involved"

    So, it looks to me there's a bit of a "hail mary" approach to a lot of these lawsuits.

    Here's the teaser article. There's a link to the full study in there.
    It was not the first of its kind. See the GAO report from 2003 that discredited the AMA's attempted use of similar surveys that were determined to be less than reliable.

    For the GAO report of 2003, the AMA did not identify Mass. as a problem state. What happened between 03 and the release of this study? What's going on in the Mass state legislature? What are the political winds in Mass?

    If it's so bad in Mass, why did less than 25% of doctors respond to the survey?

    Why does the study start with reliance on PRI findings?

    Go here and read this report prepared under a Republican Administration:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf

  4. #104
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Dean- Thanks for introducing facts into a aruguement I was trying to make just based on common sense.

    Think tanks and talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum IMO exist because the media has abidicated its responsiblility of researching the facts and instead relies on groups like the PRI or its left leaning twin to supply them. This is in part because the networks especially the 24-hour news channels have turned news into a entertainment product rather than a public service. We select the information we get from the source that already supports/reinforces our value system. What makes it worse is that the people who do this really do not understand that is what they are doing-they honestly believe they have all the facts to make a decision. The politicians exploit this and that is how in this particular issue, healthcare, something like the talk of "death panels" actually gets traction. How else to explain that two of the biggest voices on the right Glen Beck and Rush are failed Top Forty DJ's and have no actual journalistic credentials. I am sure there are similar examples on the left as well its just in my area they are not any stations that carry them.

  5. #105
    nightflier
    Guest
    GAO? Sounds kind of funny when you sound it out, doesn't it?

    Just kidding.

    Hey kid, I would say that the media, because of it's penchant for infotainment and kow-towing to their advertisers, have much more of a conservative bent these days than they did in say, the Nixon or Reagan years. This is largely why they are not reporting accurate information on the healthcare bill now, it angers all their advertisers, from Bayer, to Aetna to Pfizer.

    There was a time when the media was affectionately referred to as the 4th branch of government, but that is not at all the case anymore.

  6. #106
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    GAO? Sounds kind of funny when you sound it out, doesn't it?

    Just kidding.

    Hey kid, I would say that the media, because of it's penchant for infotainment and kow-towing to their advertisers, have much more of a conservative bent these days than they did in say, the Nixon or Reagan years. This is largely why they are not reporting accurate information on the healthcare bill now, it angers all their advertisers, from Bayer, to Aetna to Pfizer.

    There was a time when the media was affectionately referred to as the 4th branch of government, but that is not at all the case anymore.

    Night-You are probably right the networks would sell their mothers into slavery and then report on it if they thought it would get them ratings.....

    Interesting that you mentioned Nixon. I was listening to someone tick off some the acts/laws passed under Nixon and you would think he was a liberal. Amazing how times change... In many ways I do not think Lincoln would even recognize the party he helped create.
    Last edited by thekid; 09-25-2009 at 05:29 PM.

  7. #107
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    It was not the first of its kind. See the GAO report from 2003 that discredited the AMA's attempted use of similar surveys that were determined to be less than reliable.
    They don't really discountthe findings of my report.

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    For the GAO report of 2003, the AMA did not identify Mass. as a problem state. What happened between 03 and the release of this study? What's going on in the Mass state legislature? What are the political winds in Mass?
    I'm not from Massachuttes so I can't really say. Are you saying the report was bogus?

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    If it's so bad in Mass, why did less than 25% of doctors respond to the survey?
    Dunno. MAybe they don't have the time to respond or they don't want to admit practicing "defensive medicine"?

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    Why does the study start with reliance on PRI findings?
    gotta start somewhere...

    Quote Originally Posted by dean_martin
    Go here and read this report prepared under a Republican Administration:

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03836.pdf
    Again, from a brief skim, they really don't go against the other report.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that you so vehemently argue that this one component of what must be looked at when it comes to cutting costs should be overlooked. I guess you see it as simply a cost of doing business for the medical profession, eh? Well, just as in shoplifting, that "cost of doing business" gets passed on to the consumers.

    You make it seem that this is the one and only cause of the problem. IT's not, but maybe it's the only one that affects you?

    Remember, I was talking issues. You played the "partisan" card. Bully for you!

    I thought this wasn't a "partisian" thread but, from your recent posts, it sure looks like it is, or is it simply because you're a lawyer and take offense when it's pointed out that it's your profession caused this situation.

    You do realize that it's this "keep your hands off my stash" attitude that constipates real compromise and progress, not just here, but in Washington, too. Y'all are sure doing a good job of proving that and all I can say is thank God for the blue dog democrats.

    Congratulations! You have just answered, by example, the question posed in this thread "Why not Universal Health Care"..
    Last edited by markw; 09-25-2009 at 05:33 PM.

  8. #108
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    They don't really discountthe findings of my report.

    I'm not from Massachuttes so I can't really say. Are you saying the report was bogus?

    Dunno. MAybe they don't have the time to respond or they don't want to admit practicing "defensive medicine"?

    gotta start somewhere...

    Again, from a brief skim, they really don't go against the other report.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that you so vehemently argue that this one component of what must be looked at when it comes to cutting costs should be overlooked. I guess you see it as simply a cost of doing business for the medical profession, eh? Well, just as in shoplifting, that "cost of doing business" gets passed on to the consumers.

    I thought this wasn't a "partisian" thread but it sure looks like it is, or is it simply because you're a lawyer and take offense when it's pointed out that it's your profession caused this situation.

    You do realize that it's this "keep your hands off my stash" attitude that constipates real compromise and progress, not just here, but in Washington, too. Y'all are sure doing a good job of proving that and all I can say is thank God for the blue dog democrats..
    I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be looked at or factored into the overall resulting plan. My position is that medical malpractice liability is not as big a problem as some interests make it out to be. But limits on medical malpractice liability is the only thing some interests hope to achieve in this process. Medmal fears do not account for the uninsured being charged $98,000 for the same procedure that costs the insured $20,000, most of which is paid by their insurance company. It doesn't fully explain why medmal premiums are so high. Please don't think I'm anti-doctor. I like my doctor a lot. I like many of the doctors who've treated my clients. Interestingly, the only time I feel resentment from doctors (and I get frustrated with them) is when I'm deposing a doctor who's treated a worker's comp client. It amazes me because workers' comp insurers micro-manage the care and don't pay the doctors much at all. I'd much rather have doctors on my side than against me. I always treat them with respect and I know their opinions carry great weight. But that doesn't mean I think they should be above the law or have special protections, privileges and immunities from lawsuits.

    If there is a medical liability act included in the healthcare plan, it will have to include a provision that, although this new federal law will apply to the case, the case can be filed in state court. The federal court system is overloaded with civil and criminal cases that used to be state cases but have become "federalized" because Congress stepped in. My state's medmal act that was last amended in the early 90s is pretty tough on plaintiffs (but not as tough as some like Texas's). If a Federal medical malpractice act is passed as part of a national health care plan, my specific recommendation is that plaintiffs be allowed to file in state court. And if the act is as tough on plaintiffs as my state's law but not as draconian as some of the toughest in the country, then I can live with it.

    One of the reforms pushed hardest is caps on noneconomic damages which include pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, and disfigurement. But compare the case of a 40 year old professional entitled to damages for lost wages in addition to noneconomic damages to the case of the child or retired elderly who has no claim for lost wages. If noneconomic damgages are capped at $250,000 and it costs $125,000 to try a medmal case, my recommendation to the parents of the child and the elderly person would be to apply for social security, medicare and medicaid. We'll all pay for it rather than the doctor's medmal insurance carrier.

  9. #109
    Can a crooner get a gig? dean_martin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Lower AL
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    They don't really discountthe findings of my report.

    I'm not from Massachuttes so I can't really say. Are you saying the report was bogus?

    Dunno. MAybe they don't have the time to respond or they don't want to admit practicing "defensive medicine"?

    gotta start somewhere...

    Again, from a brief skim, they really don't go against the other report.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that you so vehemently argue that this one component of what must be looked at when it comes to cutting costs should be overlooked. I guess you see it as simply a cost of doing business for the medical profession, eh? Well, just as in shoplifting, that "cost of doing business" gets passed on to the consumers.

    You make it seem that this is the one and only cause of the problem. IT's not, but maybe it's the only one that affects you?

    Remember, I was talking issues. You played the "partisan" card. Bully for you!

    I thought this wasn't a "partisian" thread but, from your recent posts, it sure looks like it is, or is it simply because you're a lawyer and take offense when it's pointed out that it's your profession caused this situation.

    You do realize that it's this "keep your hands off my stash" attitude that constipates real compromise and progress, not just here, but in Washington, too. Y'all are sure doing a good job of proving that and all I can say is thank God for the blue dog democrats.

    Congratulations! You have just answered, by example, the question posed in this thread "Why not Universal Health Care"..
    Geez, Mark. I didn't realize what a personal attack your post was until I re-read it. I pointed out that some of the stuff you linked to promotes partisan agendas. That New Jersey tort reform website and the PRI I know from experience have to be watched like hawks. Maybe you didn't realize that and I apologize for accusing you of going partisan if you didn't know that these groups establish pre-determined outcomes for their "studies." I'm waiting for a real "fact check" website to tackle all the claims that come out of the healthcare debate. Again, Mark, my counter point is that defensive medicine/medmal reform is not a "MAJOR" problem. Your point is that it is. I disagree with the degree which you claim.

    I'm not saying that it should be overlooked, but I certainly don't agree that my profession caused the problem as you say. Thanks a lot by the way. And thanks for equating my profession with shoplifting. I'm sorry you hate lawyers.

    The GAO report doesn't come to many conclusions, but what should be taken away from it is that it's not easy to establish an accurate reliable number spent on defensive medicine. A later report that came to a more specific conclusion estimated that the number is $60 billion a year which is a lot but makes up only 3% of the total yearly health care cost. If we can cut some of that then I'm all for it, but cutting part of 3% is not going to save much. Thus my conclusion that this isn't as big a problem as some interests would have you believe. Did you look at the NY Times article I linked earlier? It came out this week. Again, I disagree with you that defensive medicine/medmal lawsuit reform should be a "major" part of the plan. Some interests want it to be the only part of the plan.

    Personally, I'd rather have the extra lab test anyhow. My doctor wrote me an order to have my cholesterol checked because I'm 41 and have not had it checked before. He warned me that my insurance company might not pay for it. My thought was why would my insurance company not pay for something my doctor ordered? Do they know more than my doctor? Maybe I should see them instead of my doctor.

  10. #110
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    If being trying to keep my mouth shut on this and issues in general. But I have speak out against the gross misrepresentation of the Canadian system I hear from south of the border.

    Thank you, FA, for doing your part to rebutt the slander of the Canadian universal, single-payor system. It's not perfect and 3dB is correct that a few Canadians head south for various tests and treatments -- the usual reason is that they too impatient to wait the few weeks it would take to wait for the procedures here. Waiting lists happen but they are not arbitrary: if you case isn't deemed urgrent, you might have to wait. Problem is the "deemed" part: lots of people "deem" that theirs' is a special case and they demand immediate attention. There is no other form of health care rationing beyond the waiting lists for some procedures -- and there are definitely no "death panels".

    When William Jefferson Clinton was diagnosed with partial cardiac artery blockage, he got his triple by-pass surgery 3 days later. When I was diagnosed with the same thing, I waited 5 months.

    But lets keep a few of things in perspective:
    1. My doctors told me that surgery was an option but so was drug treatment and that opting for the latter would only slightly increase my chances of heart attack. In other words, it was basically elective surgery. In fact the medication my cardiologist prescrible totally surpressed my symptoms during normal daily activities.
    2. Throughout the interval and for the operation itself and follow up thereafter, I had excellent doctors. My surgeon, a professor at the University of Western Ontario, wanted to do a robotic procedure but decided he couldn't do a good enough job that was so did a standard sternectory (right word?); but he didn't have to stop my heart or use a heart-lung machine or transfused any blood.
    3. I recently heard that typical by-pass surgery in the US run $168,000. I have no doubt about the quality of my treatment against the typical US standard so this is the kind of bill I would have got. Instead I was charged $800 for five days in a semi-private room (which my private insurance did pay).
    I know Americans resent it when anyone (especially me, I think) criticizes the US. Fine, what you do is up to you. But personally I would be ashamed to lived in the only country in the first world that won't (not can't) offer its citizens quality health care regardless ot their ability to pay.

    Look, smarten up. And don't fret about the cost. The Canadian system delivers outcomes every bit as good as the US for about 65% of the cost.

  11. #111
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Feanor

    Nice to add a little different perspective.
    I kind have always figured that if the Canadian system was the death trap it is often portrayed, people there would not put up with it. I also find it funny when people point to the evils of "socialized medicine" in a democratic system of government. If it was that bad you have to believe governments would rise and fall over the health care issue.

  12. #112
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Smokey
    Given that majority of those who are uninsured fall under that catagory, what would be more misguided than not being insured?

    The real question probably is how it would effect those that are insured. May be you can shed more light on that.
    The majority that are uninsured do currently fall under that category but it won't be that way in three to five years. We can continue to argue the myopia, simplistically fight along party lines, and name-call or we can examine the root causes.

    You wanna break this sum***** wide open? What happened on May 8, 1945?

    This problem does not exist in a vaccuum, nor will the solutions be binary in nature.

  13. #113
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Feanor

    Nice to add a little different perspective.
    I kind have always figured that if the Canadian system was the death trap it is often portrayed, people there would not put up with it. I also find it funny when people point to the evils of "socialized medicine" in a democratic system of government. If it was that bad you have to believe governments would rise and fall over the health care issue.
    Kid, the fact is that there is no Canadian politician anywhere in the country who could possibly be elected advocating a US-style healthcare system.

    People always like to rant and rail about how terrible government is: incompotent, inefficient, serving only the self-interest of politicians, etc.. This is no different in Canada, but although everyone here has an opinion about how our healthcare ought to be improved, nobody wants to turf it for a fully private system.

  14. #114
    nightflier
    Guest

    Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    You wanna break this sum***** wide open? What happened on May 8, 1945?
    I know you're probably referring to something else, but if not, what does the surrender of Nazi Germany have to do with this?

  15. #115
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Kid, the fact is that there is no Canadian politician anywhere in the country who could possibly be elected advocating a US-style healthcare system.

    People always like to rant and rail about how terrible government is: incompotent, inefficient, serving only the self-interest of politicians, etc.. This is no different in Canada, but although everyone here has an opinion about how our healthcare ought to be improved, nobody wants to turf it for a fully private system.
    I have yet to meet a Canadian in Hawaii who thinks their healthcare is inadequate. I have heard nothing but a balance of compliments and some realistic negatives about their system. I think the Brits have also come out and railed against what the American politician is saying about their system as well.

    Our politicians need to stop lying to the public about other countries healthcare system, and admit there is some merit to what these other countries are doing. Once again, I expect the party of fiscal discipline to step up to the plate on this.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  16. #116
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I have yet to meet a Canadian in Hawaii who thinks their healthcare is inadequate. I have heard nothing but a balance of compliments and some realistic negatives about their system. I think the Brits have also come out and railed against what the American politician is saying about their system as well.

    Our politicians need to stop lying to the public about other countries healthcare system, and admit there is some merit to what these other countries are doing. Once again, I expect the party of fiscal discipline to step up to the plate on this.
    Before pushing a mandatory plan, I think we would be better served by looking into cost containment first. Where, exactly, are the extra costs we deal with coming from? More to the point, who is profiting from them?

    Once that's been accomplished, I'll gladly back a well thought out "public" option but until that's done, all it's going to do is put more money into the pockets of those who already profit too much from the current system.

    On a related issue, I see that thanks to our taxpayer money, the banks are well on the way to making record profits again and the biggies will be getting huge bonus' again. Too bad they don't have to put it back when they make bad investments. They can come to us for a handout...

    This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?
    Last edited by markw; 09-28-2009 at 02:00 PM.

  17. #117
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?
    Not that is related to this topic but you do know the bank bailout was engineered and recommended by a GOP administration...... so it is a little ironic that thesame supporters of that Administration are screaming socialism at the current Administration when it comes to reforming health care.

  18. #118
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Thanks for not disappointing me.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Not that is related to this topic but you do know the bank bailout was engineered and recommended by a GOP administration...... so it is a little ironic that thesame supporters of that Administration are screaming socialism at the current Administration when it comes to reforming health care.
    Now, who can honestly say with a straight face this isn't really a thinly veiled pissing contest initiated for the lib's pleasure? Is that a turtleneck you're wearing, or is it your foreskin?

    Those bonus' were paid out under Obama's watch, and so is this next round. If he could single-handedly wrest control of two major automakers and ignore the law to screw the secured bondholders, he could have easily stymied these bonus' if he really wanted to, particularly this second round.

    You might be interested to know who some of those secured bondholders were, too.
    Last edited by markw; 09-28-2009 at 04:15 PM.

  19. #119
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Speaking of skin methinks someone's is too thin as in none of my threads have I resorted to name calling and have generally avoided labeling the poster by their political views.

    I don't want to take this off-topic too much but you avoided my original point which was that people (on both sides of the aisle) who engineered and voted for the bank bailout during the bailout of Wall St. had no problem with the government getting involved in the financial system. The politicians (again on both sides of the aisle) basically protected the monied interests in that situation and that is what is occuring primarily with this so called health care reform. Only the hypocrisy is that politicians on both sides of the aisle are shrouding this protection within the usual political rhetoric of which cries of socialism is just one of them.

  20. #120
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Speaking of skin methinks someone's is too thin as in none of my threads have I resorted to name calling and have generally avoided labeling the poster by their political views.
    Deal with it. I called it as I see it. You asked for it, you got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    I don't want to take this off-topic too much but you avoided my original point which was that people (on both sides of the aisle) who engineered and voted for the bank bailout during the bailout of Wall St. had no problem with the government getting involved in the financial system. The politicians (again on both sides of the aisle) basically protected the monied interests in that situation and that is what is occuring primarily with this so called health care reform. Only the hypocrisy is that politicians on both sides of the aisle are shrouding this protection within the usual political rhetoric of which cries of socialism is just one of them.
    Bullshiite. Your post was a cute little one-liner designed to trash the previous administration. At least be man enough to admit it.

  21. #121
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by thekid
    Speaking of skin methinks someone's is too thin as in none of my threads have I resorted to name calling and have generally avoided labeling the poster by their political views...
    I know you ain't callin' my name out, friend. You've made some eloquent points outta details, my friend, but I'm talking "macro", 'cuz the only viable solution is going to involve a "macro" solution and a reckonning from all sides...
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  22. #122
    Man of the People Forums Moderator bobsticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    down there
    Posts
    6,852
    Quote Originally Posted by nightflier
    I know you're probably referring to something else, but if not, what does the surrender of Nazi Germany have to do with this?
    I am referring directly to the Nazi capitulation...it's the precursor to all this. What happened weeks later?
    So, I broke into the palace
    With a sponge and a rusty spanner
    She said : "Eh, I know you, and you cannot sing"
    I said : "That's nothing - you should hear me play piano"

  23. #123
    Suspended Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ozarks
    Posts
    3,959
    Quote Originally Posted by bobsticks
    I am referring directly to the Nazi capitulation...it's the precursor to all this. What happened weeks later?
    To tell you the truth, I don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

    I told you to post only when sober

  24. #124
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9
    As an Australian who has attempted to work out the US medical system through print and online media, I remain completely confused.
    Here in Oz our public health system is paid for by a tax called the 'Medicare Levy' which is 1.5% of taxable income. Everybody pays it unless you have income less than about AUS$6,000 a year. Everybody is covered. If you earn more than AUS$100,000 a year you must take out private medical insurance and if you don't you have to pay a 'Medicare Surcharge' (which ends up being more than the insurance).
    Therefore the public system only looks after people who can't afford medical insurance which keeps costs down. Your employer has nothing to do with your private medical needs or insurance. Therefore if you lose your job you don't lose your cover.
    From the other side of the Pacific the American system seems very selfish. For a country with such a large Christian following it astounds me that you seem to ignore the bits of the Bible that relate to helping the poor and disadvantaged.
    When I have travelled in the U.S. I see something that you don't see here in OZ - beggars!
    For the richest country in the world - what is your problem with charity and chipping in to help???

  25. #125
    I put the Gee in Gear.... thekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    VB VA
    Posts
    2,307
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Deal with it. I called it as I see it. You asked for it, you got it.

    Bullshiite. Your post was a cute little one-liner designed to trash the previous administration. At least be man enough to admit it.
    No it was not a cute little one-liner designed to trash the previous administration it was stating a fact. In the Summer and Fall of 2008 the sitting Treasury Secretary of a GOP administration called in the heads of the major banks and together with the Fed Chairman and others came up with the TARP program;

    "On October 14, 2008, Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants in the nine largest American banks."

    "On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers."

    I don't seem to recall people running around screaming socialism when a GOP president was doing this.

    These moves were supported on a largely bi-partisan basis because members of both parties saw the need to do so and wrongly or rightly acted together to pass legislation that protected Wall St under the guise of helping Joe Six-Pack. When it comes to Health Care some of these same politicians are screaming socialism and wasteful spending. This to me is total hypocrisy and their (and apparently your) approach to health care "reform" is to use it as a policy device to promote a politics as usual agenda-lower taxes-tort reform etc. It is no different than what the Dems did during the recovery spending bills when they loaded it with pork for most of their traditional causes.

    The very thing you complain about with the bank bailout is exacty what in many ways is going on in Health Care. Private Health Care companies rake in huge profits taking in premiums of the avergae American. When it becomes too costly to do so they raise premiums or deny coverage which eventually leads to that same average American's health care eventually being subsidized by the taxpayer in the form of Medicaid/Medicare payments. So can't the following quote about the banking system also apply to the current health care system?

    " This is essentially privatized profits and socialized losses. Is this any way to run a country?"

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •