Obama urges economic fairness in State Of The Union

[dalsh327]

No, not really...maybe for a short time but eventually, like you say, supply and demand will cause them to be competitive. As for the hospitals, that's a different entity and not really what I was referring to. A lot of Hospitals are non profit to begin with, so regulating them would not be as important.

Hospitals and healthcare should not be primarily run for profit, period and insurance companies should be taken out of the loop completely as far as decisions on treatment are concerned.

It doesn't help that the drug industry is part of the problem, writing doctors big checks.

Insurance for doctors to cover lawsuits is high - it all comes out of our pockets. But then you run into a maximum amount a doctor would be sued for. It prob. has to be resolved by state government, because that's who certifies MDs, and what the rules should be. I think if the states become more strict about MDs and some sort of certificate renewal by the state after 10 years where there's auditing and customer ratings involved, that might help keep them in check. There should also be a website people can access where they just punch in the MD's ID # and shows their status in states they've practiced in. Anyone can call themselves a "Doctor", but there should be some sort of "revoked' red flag that comes up.

Dental also gets overlooked. People need it, but it's become all about business.

[Ace Nova]

No, not really...maybe for a short time but eventually, like you say, supply and demand will cause them to be competitive. As for the hospitals, that's a different entity and not really what I was referring to. A lot of Hospitals are non profit to begin with, so regulating them would not be as important.

Hospitals and healthcare should not be primarily run for profit, period and insurance companies should be taken out of the loop completely as far as decisions on treatment are concerned.

It doesn't help that the drug industry is part of the problem, writing doctors big checks.

Insurance for doctors to cover lawsuits is high - it all comes out of our pockets. But then you run into a maximum amount a doctor would be sued for. It prob. has to be resolved by state government, because that's who certifies MDs, and what the rules should be. I think if the states become more strict about MDs and some sort of certificate renewal by the state after 10 years where there's auditing and customer ratings involved, that might help keep them in check. There should also be a website people can access where they just punch in the MD's ID # and shows their status in states they've practiced in. Anyone can call themselves a "Doctor", but there should be some sort of "revoked' red flag that comes up.

Dental also gets overlooked. People need it, but it's become all about business.

In reference to limiting what hospitals, doctors, etc. can be sued for, depending on state laws - I personally think that health insurance companies could follow the full tort/partial tort/no fault paradigm that many auto insurance companies and states use.

Essentially, if you choose to have full tort insurance, you still have the right to sue for as much as you want BUT you will always pay the highest premiums. If you choose partial tort, limits will be set on the amount you can sue for and you will pay a lower premium. If you choose "no fault" insurance, other than the most severe cases, you would waive your right to sue and go to pre set arbitration settlement amounts, in exchange for paying the lowest premiums.

[metatron]

Ok, I tried to read this thread, I really did, but it's impossible. I made it about 1/3 of the way through and it made me physically sick. I'm so tired with these american ultralibertarian wackos all over the internet, if I see on more Ron Paul mention I might actually throw up. All the mainstream economists in the entire world must be idiots, but you read The Road to Serfdom, so you have it all figured out, right? Let's all go back to the gold standard.

Fucking morons..

(Don't bother replying, I'm not returning to this thread for the sake of my own sanity.)

Come back for the sake of sanity! What's wrong with taking care of those less able than ourselves is the point I think.

Now I just puked.

[metatron]

No, not really...maybe for a short time but eventually, like you say, supply and demand will cause them to be competitive. As for the hospitals, that's a different entity and not really what I was referring to. A lot of Hospitals are non profit to begin with, so regulating them would not be as important.

Hospitals and healthcare should not be primarily run for profit, period and insurance companies should be taken out of the loop completely as far as decisions on treatment are concerned.

It doesn't help that the drug industry is part of the problem, writing doctors big checks.

Insurance for doctors to cover lawsuits is high - it all comes out of our pockets. But then you run into a maximum amount a doctor would be sued for. It prob. has to be resolved by state government, because that's who certifies MDs, and what the rules should be. I think if the states become more strict about MDs and some sort of certificate renewal by the state after 10 years where there's auditing and customer ratings involved, that might help keep them in check. There should also be a website people can access where they just punch in the MD's ID # and shows their status in states they've practiced in. Anyone can call themselves a "Doctor", but there should be some sort of "revoked' red flag that comes up.

Dental also gets overlooked. People need it, but it's become all about business.

In reference to limiting what hospitals, doctors, etc. can be sued for, depending on state laws - I personally think that health insurance companies could follow the full tort/partial tort/no fault paradigm that many auto insurance companies and states use.

Essentially, if you choose to have full tort insurance, you still have the right to sue for as much as you want BUT you will always pay the highest premiums. If you choose partial tort, limits will be set on the amount you can sue for and you will pay a lower premium. If you choose "no fault" insurance, other than the most severe cases, you would waive your right to sue and go to pre set arbitration settlement amounts, in exchange for paying the lowest premiums.

LOL! Enjoy the inflation.

[Graeme]

No, not really...maybe for a short time but eventually, like you say, supply and demand will cause them to be competitive. As for the hospitals, that's a different entity and not really what I was referring to. A lot of Hospitals are non profit to begin with, so regulating them would not be as important.

Hospitals and healthcare should not be primarily run for profit, period and insurance companies should be taken out of the loop completely as far as decisions on treatment are concerned.

It doesn't help that the drug industry is part of the problem, writing doctors big checks.

Insurance for doctors to cover lawsuits is high - it all comes out of our pockets. But then you run into a maximum amount a doctor would be sued for. It prob. has to be resolved by state government, because that's who certifies MDs, and what the rules should be. I think if the states become more strict about MDs and some sort of certificate renewal by the state after 10 years where there's auditing and customer ratings involved, that might help keep them in check. There should also be a website people can access where they just punch in the MD's ID # and shows their status in states they've practiced in. Anyone can call themselves a "Doctor", but there should be some sort of "revoked' red flag that comes up.

Dental also gets overlooked. People need it, but it's become all about business.

In reference to limiting what hospitals, doctors, etc. can be sued for, depending on state laws - I personally think that health insurance companies could follow the full tort/partial tort/no fault paradigm that many auto insurance companies and states use.

Essentially, if you choose to have full tort insurance, you still have the right to sue for as much as you want BUT you will always pay the highest premiums. If you choose partial tort, limits will be set on the amount you can sue for and you will pay a lower premium. If you choose "no fault" insurance, other than the most severe cases, you would waive your right to sue and go to pre set arbitration settlement amounts, in exchange for paying the lowest premiums.

LOL! Enjoy the inflation.

What do you think of the Scandinavian countries then? The majority of people who've posted in this thread from that area seem strongly supportive of the social-democratic system they have and the UN classifies them as the best countries to live in on the planet.

[Ace Nova]

LOL! Enjoy the inflation.

Inflation? No, the opposite actually, when it comes to health care, anyway. Implementing a system similar to what I described would lower insurance costs NOT increase them. Like a previous poster explained, part of the reason health premiums are so high is because there are currently no limits set on what people can sue for in case of malpractice, etc....setting limits would only lower costs, therefore decreasing the premiums.

[Dazey]

What's wrong with taking care of those less able than ourselves is the point I think.

Now I just puked.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Dazey Does Dallas

[Gauda]

What's wrong with taking care of those less able than ourselves is the point I think.

Now I just puked.

Haha, love that dog!

Also, many good posts in this tread!

(Many really bad to, but less than expected).

[bran]

our country is royally fucked

[shades]

The healthcare system "costs" in the US needs reform no doubt.

the Health Care itself is the best in the world.

the burden of this "best in the world" cost is on the middle class that pay the bills. Those of us with Health insurance are paying

out of control premiums with no end in sight.

Obamacare does nothing to address that.

Obamacare is nothing more than another social program.

call it an expansion of existing Medicaid, because that's all it is.

The Government beauracacy that will ensue will not only do nothing to lower my healthcare costs, it will now raise my taxes to support it.

There's a good reason why the administration put off the impact of the costs until after the 2012 election.

The American people, the ones paying the bills and getting the screw job have already tried to tell Obama we dont like it

in the midterm elections when we blasted their ranks with unprecidented turnout to show it.

Even Masssachusetts sent a republican to fill Ted Kennedys seat to try and stop it.

And he decided to bypass the standing order of business to ram it through anyway.

There is no economic fairness in Obamas policies, he is nothing more than a pandering class warfare warrior

that was in the right place at the right time.

So we will speak a little louder in November.

[AxlisOld]

Dont worry shades, Obama will be much more "flexible" after the election . Oh wait, that's only for Russia, not his own country telling him they hate his forced bullshit.

Inb4 "ignorant Republican wants people to die."

[The_Universal_Sigh]

Canada's healthcare is "socialist". Canadians have great healthcare, almost no one goes broke from being sick, no one gets worried about bills or insurance when sick, everyone gets free health care. Republicans are pretty lucky Americans largely ignore Canada or you'd all have to drastically change your party.

On an unrelated note, Canada has heavy regulation on our banks. Canada survived the world economic crises better than almost everyone else and now Canadians have a higher living standard than Americans.

Why Americans are so scared of "socialism" I do not understand, must be the after effects of all that anti communist propaganda you guys had to suffer through for decades. (I'm not saying the USSR was good, though I bet every Republican who read that last sentence took it that way.)

[AxlisOld]

We're afraid of socialism because we know how many pieces of shit we have in the US that want free shit. And we want to keep the money that I we earn, not have it buy a car stereo or anything else fora lazy deadbeats. We also don't want universal health care because it makes you responsible for keeping yourself healthy. Since I don't need health insurance now, I don't purchase it. I am now going to be fined for not needing health care.

What is wrong with being in it for yourself?

[bran]

[DirtyDeeds]

That picture would only make sense with France.

[Dazey]

lolatAmericanswhothinktheyknowwhatsocialismis

[AxlisOld]

LolatEuropeanswhodon'tknowhwatthetermrelativitymeans.

[DirtyDeeds]

lolateverybodypostingawholebunchofwordstogetherasonewordwiththefirstpartofitbeinglol

[Johnny Drama]

LolatEuropeanswhodon'tknowhwatthetermrelativitymeans.

OH CAMON GAIS!

[JoseChung]

We're afraid of socialism because we know how many pieces of shit we have in the US that want free shit. And we want to keep the money that I we earn, not have it buy a car stereo or anything else fora lazy deadbeats. We also don't want universal health care because it makes you responsible for keeping yourself healthy. Since I don't need health insurance now, I don't purchase it. I am now going to be fined for not needing health care.

What is wrong with being in it for yourself?

I almost always stay out of political debates because, frankly, I can't be bothered dealing with right wingers hating the less fortunate and calling it normal society but the bit I have put in bold needs an answer.

So, it's up to each of us to stay healthy? I don't think most people have a choice when some of the following happens -

They get shot (happens a lot in america, sorry)

They get cancer

They get run over by a car

Their child gets sick

They get food poisoning

Also you state "Since I don't need health insurance now, I don't purchase it"

Good luck finding affordable insurance if you are ever unlucky enough to get cancer, because frankly most of the insurance companies would prefer that you just die.

[Dazey]

LolatEuropeanswhodon'tknowhwatthetermrelativitymeans.

lolatAmericanswhodon'tknowthedifferencebetweenrelativityandrelativismEinsteinwouldbespinninginhisgrave

Edited July 22, 2012 by Dazey

[Tom1447]

The healthcare system "costs" in the US needs reform no doubt.

the Health Care itself is the best in the world.

the burden of this "best in the world" cost is on the middle class that pay the bills. Those of us with Health insurance are paying

out of control premiums with no end in sight.

Obamacare does nothing to address that.

Obamacare is nothing more than another social program.

call it an expansion of existing Medicaid, because that's all it is.

The Government beauracacy that will ensue will not only do nothing to lower my healthcare costs, it will now raise my taxes to support it.

There's a good reason why the administration put off the impact of the costs until after the 2012 election.

The American people, the ones paying the bills and getting the screw job have already tried to tell Obama we dont like it

in the midterm elections when we blasted their ranks with unprecidented turnout to show it.

Even Masssachusetts sent a republican to fill Ted Kennedys seat to try and stop it.

And he decided to bypass the standing order of business to ram it through anyway.

There is no economic fairness in Obamas policies, he is nothing more than a pandering class warfare warrior

that was in the right place at the right time.

So we will speak a little louder in November.

The US is 36th in the world for healthcare not first, its not even close.

[Dazey]

The US is 36th in the world for healthcare not first, its not even close.

Not true! If you're a millionaire there's no better healthcare in the world!

[AxlisOld]

We're afraid of socialism because we know how many pieces of shit we have in the US that want free shit. And we want to keep the money that I we earn, not have it buy a car stereo or anything else fora lazy deadbeats. We also don't want universal health care because it makes you responsible for keeping yourself healthy. Since I don't need health insurance now, I don't purchase it. I am now going to be fined for not needing health care.

What is wrong with being in it for yourself?

I almost always stay out of political debates because, frankly, I can't be bothered dealing with right wingers hating the less fortunate and calling it normal society but the bit I have put in bold needs an answer.

So, it's up to each of us to stay healthy? I don't think most people have a choice when some of the following happens -

They get shot (happens a lot in america, sorry)

They get cancer

They get run over by a car

Their child gets sick

They get food poisoning

Also you state "Since I don't need health insurance now, I don't purchase it"

Good luck finding affordable insurance if you are ever unlucky enough to get cancer, because frankly most of the insurance companies would prefer that you just die.

I'm all for govt subsidy. I believe after a certain dollar amount, the govt should in fact step in and help you. What I am not for is people getting a free ride. Children are already covered so that point is moot, people should get health care, but they should have to pay for it. Putting us all on an even keel with universal is not fair, it's a guilty until proven innocent approach. All people are created equal in the eyes of health care, some people smoke, others are fat, I drink a lot, these factors should be taken into consideration. Everyone should have health care, and health care needs to be paid for, the way our new law goes about it is completely wrong.