KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Question about the "medical malpractice crisis." How does this relate to a discussion of whether universal healthcare is a good idea, or whether broader coverage of any kind and combination of public and private sector services would be worth pursuing? What keeps people from being able to afford health care today? The cost? What impacts the cost? Malpractice INSURANCE is huge. Note the word in CAPS, Matt. INSURANCE. Litigation has driven this, whether you like it or not. The fear of lawsuits, and of losing everything you have drives doctors to pay huge premiums. This impacts costs. Hospitals and clinics all foot this bill. Threat of litigation drives other aspects of our health care system - including what/how procedures are done and how costly they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Fairweather, I have been very clear about what I am for and I provide a basis for my ideas. You, on the other hand, have been obsessed with the label "socialism" but refuse to suggest anything concrete about what would, could, might, or should be better and refuse to back up your assetions. Even your pal KK says something more substantive than you do when he complains of malpractice lawsuits, though I'm not sure what that issue has to do with this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokogirl Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Question about the "medical malpractice crisis." How does this relate to a discussion of whether universal healthcare is a good idea, or whether broader coverage of any kind and combination of public and private sector services would be worth pursuing? I was responding to 5Ks point about the left not addressing some issues. I think the malpractice issue has driven up healthcare costs but I know in WA state it has also caused a shortage in some medical disciplines. I would think ultimately it relates to the bottom line of $$ for a universal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Just to be fair, I don't see too many destitute doctors. And I DO see a lot of overweight RN's making close to $40/hr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 KK, Google is not discussion, you say, so I guess I won't search for discussions of just what percentage of our healthcare costs are attributable to malpractice claims, or whether there are any concrete proposals for an alternative way to assure quality healthcare. But if you get bored some time, try it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Fairweather, I have been very clear about what I am for and I provide a basis for my ideas. You, on the other hand, have been obsessed with the label "socialism" but refuse to suggest anything concrete about what would, could, might, or should be better and refuse to back up your assetions. Even your pal KK says something more substantive than you do when he complains of malpractice lawsuits, though I'm not sure what that issue has to do with this discussion. No Matt. You slither around threads in chameleon-like fashion, claiming one thing when it suits and another when it does not-- desperately Goggling for knowledge you don't already possess and recommending books you have never read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Question about the "medical malpractice crisis." How does this relate to a discussion of whether universal healthcare is a good idea, or whether broader coverage of any kind and combination of public and private sector services would be worth pursuing? I was responding to 5Ks point about the left not addressing some issues. I think the malpractice issue has driven up healthcare costs but I know in WA state it has also caused a shortage in some medical disciplines. I would think ultimately it relates to the bottom line of $$ for a universal system. If a doctor/hospital/clinic pays XXX dollars (where XXX has grown to obscene proportions in the aggregate accross the industry) for malpractice insurance, settlements, payouts and other legal fees, they pass these costs on to the guy at the bottom - the person receiving medical care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I think you are right, Tokogirl. In certain high risk specialties, malpractice insurance is a huge factor. Across the board, as compared to total healthcare costs, not so much. And the cost of malpractice insurance has been repeatedly shown to be driven by a combination of factors related to the insurance and investment industry in addition to the payment of claims. There is a malpractice problem, but it is not nearly as simple as KK would suggest and part of the problem is that there is a lot of malpractice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Fairweather, Try dropping the personal attacks and answering a single point in the discussion. Oh - something besides how I am a socialist or I suggested you might be interested in a book that I had not read. You might even enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokogirl Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Just to be fair, I don't see too many destitute doctors. And I DO see a lot of overweight RN's making close to $40/hr. FW, True about destitute docs but overweight RNs. The RNs go to college and have to attend so many hours of continuing eduacation and obtain recertification. More gov't regulation to insure the best healthcare. 5K whether you like it or not the gov't has its hand in the healthcare industry! For better or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 (edited) Fairweather, Try dropping the personal attacks and answering a single point in the discussion. I believe I did re your denied desire for a government run system. I even threw in a personal story. Drop the personal attacks? Try it yourself. Edited August 25, 2008 by Fairweather Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 5K whether you like it or not the gov't has its hand in the healthcare industry! For better or worse. What the socialists are proposing is to eliminate an industry (health insurance companies) and replace them with a state-run agency. this is far more than "having a hand" in the industry. It's nationalization and a move towards communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokogirl Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I think you are right, Tokogirl. In certain high risk specialties, malpractice insurance is a huge factor. Across the board, as compared to total healthcare costs, not so much. And the cost of malpractice insurance has been repeatedly shown to be driven by a combination of factors related to the insurance and investment industry in addition to the payment of claims. There is a malpractice problem, but it is not nearly as simple as KK would suggest and part of the problem is that there is a lot of malpractice. What kind of states do you have for malpractice in WA or other staes? The whole insurance, healthcare system, prescription drug thing is complicated but something we will have to deal with sooner rather than later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokogirl Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 5K whether you like it or not the gov't has its hand in the healthcare industry! For better or worse. What the socialists are proposing is to eliminate an industry (health insurance companies) and replace them with a state-run agency. this is far more than "having a hand" in the industry. It's nationalization and a move towards communism. Well, my take on some of the ideas whipping around in WA DC is not replacing the private insurance companies but revamping the controls surrounding what the insurance companies do and how they go about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Just to be fair, I don't see too many destitute doctors. And I DO see a lot of overweight RN's making close to $40/hr. FW, True about destitute docs but overweight RNs. The RNs go to college and have to attend so many hours of continuing eduacation and obtain recertification. More gov't regulation to insure the best healthcare. 5K whether you like it or not the gov't has its hand in the healthcare industry! For better or worse. I don't have anything against government regulation and oversight. But if the government runs the entire system--like Matt wants--who will oversee the government? And you've gotta admit that an inordinate number of RN's are overweight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 25, 2008 Author Share Posted August 25, 2008 Well, my take on some of the ideas whipping around in WA DC is not replacing the private insurance companies but revamping the controls surrounding what the insurance companies do and how they go about it. There ya go! I've got no problem with that. But what Matt wants is something much different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokogirl Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Just to be fair, I don't see too many destitute doctors. And I DO see a lot of overweight RN's making close to $40/hr. FW, True about destitute docs but overweight RNs. The RNs go to college and have to attend so many hours of continuing eduacation and obtain recertification. More gov't regulation to insure the best healthcare. 5K whether you like it or not the gov't has its hand in the healthcare industry! For better or worse. I don't have anything against government regulation and oversight. But if the government runs the entire system--like Matt wants--who will oversee the government? And you've gotta admit that an inordinate number of RN's are overweight. Okay, yes to the comment about the RNs but the population as a whole seems to be heading that way. I wouldn't want the gov't to run the entire system: insurance, healthcare facilities, etc.. Think that is called a monoply?! As with anything checks and balances are good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Well, my take on some of the ideas whipping around in WA DC is not replacing the private insurance companies but revamping the controls surrounding what the insurance companies do and how they go about it. There ya go! I've got no problem with that. But what Matt wants is something much different. To solve what problem or problems? High costs? Bringing them down does not guarantee "universal health care" - which is the term MattP keeps using - along with many of the other liberals speaking out on this issue. We keep hearing about one supposedly atrocious problem after another, but one supposed solution to them all - big government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Your taxes already pay for it. Why not have it? Does anyone else want to take this one? It is too easy. Kev? You need a pick me up. Why don't you take this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.