Comments on: Gender Rating = Pre-Existing Condition

By: Terri Evans

Terri Evans — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:04:42 +0000

Flora, Ayn Rand wrote some exquisite fiction.

By: Brenden

Brenden — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:40:45 +0000

Thank you for that insightful commentary.

By: Flora Dodders

Flora Dodders — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:45:00 +0000

You’ve been reading way too much Ayn rand – and believing it.

By: Brenden

Brenden — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:47:42 +0000

Yes. A capitalist never coerces, cheats or brutalizes in pure competitive markets because efforts to do so direct scarce resources away from production.

By: S Baggett

S Baggett — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:34:57 +0000

“free exchange”- Is that a system is inherently absent of coercion, cheating and brutality?

By: Brenden

Brenden — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:35:24 +0000

“the private insurance company policy increases are a natural and cynical occurrence of using capitalism to influence lawmakers into tort “reform.””

This is my whole point: capitalism has never worked in the health insurance business. Your statement implies a subversion of market principles; capitalism doesn’t use lawmakers, lawyers or torts as inputs to produce outputs. They only add cost. In healthcare the gov’t allocates resources directly through medicare or indirectly through legislation. The lack of price discovery, a notion I think you’ve agreed with in principle, indicates that competitive markets don’t function in this industry. And that’s because of gov’t influence. When you ask for more gov’t involvement, you’ll only make it worse.

Lee I think you’re view of capitalism is nearly entirely political. The real definition is simply a market where producers and consumers come together to freely exchange. When producers offer goods/services at price consumers can afford, the market clears. That’s it. Inputs and outputs, and a willingness by producers to undertake risk for reward. There’s no politics in that (maybe there is, if so let me know). When you lard up the system with gov’t mandates and imputed motives of corrupt fatcats, all you’re doing is adding cost. This is self-evident.

I’m advocating for removing the fatcats and the gov’t because they sustain each other.

By: Lee Leslie

Lee Leslie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:59:43 +0000

The figures I stated are percentages of total US health care costs and were included to debunk your assertion that tort “reform” would lower costs. Sure, the cost to practitioners to purchase malpractice insurance has skyrocketed, but not because of jury awards, increased risk or costs – the private insurance company policy increases are a natural and cynical occurrence of using capitalism to influence lawmakers into tort “reform.” Seems to have worked well.

By: Brenden

Brenden — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:44:21 +0000

Note to users: don’t attempt to use mathematical inequalities in your posting. Second paragraph should read (don’t want you to miss all the misinformation!):

Lee, depends upon how you define costs. If you’re saying liability costs for doctors are less than or equal to 0.333 to 1.0 percent, I’m afraid I will have to call bullshoes on that one. Ask any doctor what malpractice insurance costs — especially for OB-GYNs — and dollars to donutholes that figure will be at least 10 percent. That’s the front-end costs. I assume you’re talking about back-end frivolous lawsuits and the like. I’m not sure about that figure but I’m confident you’re lowballing. Virus of misinformation, indeed.

By: Brenden

Brenden — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:40:48 +0000

I guess I will plead to a certain about of misinformation. The notion I admitted to that there is a private, competitive insurance functioning business model in this country is false. Insurance companies are monopolistic profiteers because the gov’t wants them that way. Federal and state gov’t wouldn’t regulate the industry with 50+1 gov’t entities, flavors of legislation and court systems if they wanted a real competitive alternative.

Lee, depends upon how you define costs. If you’re saying liability costs for doctors are = 10%. That’s the front-end costs. I assume you’re talking about back-end frivolous lawsuits and the like. Not to mentioned economic demands on the court system. I’m not sure about that figure but I’m confident you’re lowballing. Virus of misinformation, indeed.

As to rationing, the gov’t system works (sort of) because physicians pass costs of below-cost Medicare patients onto their private insurance companies and patients who can otherwise afford it. When you go ask the doctors about their malpractice rates, be sure to follow up with them if they’d like to double their Medicare patient load at the expense of private insurance payors. I think you’ll hear a lot of coughing and puking on the other end.

Since I’m too lazy to do the actual research required to refute the rest of your Uncle-Sam-please-save-us arguments, I will simply ask this: Since the gov’t spends more than $2 trillion now on healthcare and cannot solve your problems, what makes you think writing them a blank public option economic and regulatory check will make it any better?

By: elaine in mississippi

elaine in mississippi — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:22:46 +0000

We (our Republican house and senate + gov), in Mississippi, passed tort reform on the premise that it would lower healthcare costs and therefore insurance premiums. Neither of this came to pass. Insurance premiums have continued to rise ,and in terms of quality of care MS ranks 51 out of 51. (Evidently they count Puerto Rico.)
Many legitimate plantiff firms have closed putting hundreds out of work. And now…the legislature is contemplating raising the caps on damage awards because it has come to their attention, albiet belatedly, that people who have been damaged have no viable source of redress. Tort reform is a favorite straw man of the GOP.
It’s but a side show.

By: Mary Lee (aka Bootsie Lucas)

Mary Lee (aka Bootsie Lucas) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:01:31 +0000

Great story, Terri. And excellent rebuttal to Brenden’s comment, Lee.

Hey, folks. You’ve heard this before: Call your senators! Call your representative! Tell them what you think about this situation. If your kind of shy, just e-mail them. Don’t know who they are or how to get in touch? Go to http://www.senate.gov or http://www.house.gov. If you call every day, maybe they’ll get the message.

By: eleanor ringel cater

eleanor ringel cater — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:45:52 +0000

Terri— that’s one of the best leads I’ve EVER read.

By: Lee Leslie

Lee Leslie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:04:49 +0000

Brenden – there you go, spreading the virus of misinformation again – if there were just a vaccine for your parroting flu – we can wash our hands, but not our minds.
High malpractice cost is a myth. Actual costs are minute (nationally from 1/3 of 1 percent to a high of 2 percent) and 48 states have already passed your tort “reform”. Hardly worth asking patients to give up their rights when the remedy most often sought is payment for health care costs and lost wages of the malpractice (of course, the malpractice condition would be considered a preexisting condition and victims would be denied private insurance).
Rationed care is also mythological distortion. Private insurance rations at a much higher rate than current public plans – ask any doctor. The private insurance companies routinely ration care by denying procedures as unnecessary or pre-existing, rescinding care, requiring providers demand unaffordable co-payments or having no doctors in a specialty area in their networks.
Long waits is another fabrication – unproven in 50 years of experience in our the public system. My experience in your private system is that it takes from 30 to 90 days to get most appointments in Atlanta and then a wait in a physician’s office of 1 to 3 hours.
“Just sayin’” you are wrong.

By: Brenden

Brenden — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:32:34 +0000

Public option will hit women the hardest. Ob-gyn is one of the most susceptible practices to legal liabilities, with entire groups of practitioners leaving whole states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Delivering babies is incredibly expensive and freighted with legal minefields — which is why it’s so expensive to cover. If you want more access to such care, support tort reform to lower practitioner legal costs. Support nationally normalized regulation of medical legal liabilities to lower costs. And of course support portable private competitive medical insurance. (Won’t hold my breath, though). Public option will merely ration care and push good doctors into a cash system for the folks who can afford it. Women in difficult economic circumstances can look forward to long, long waits. Qualified Ob-gyn doctors are now pinched very hard by potential legal liabilities and will be the first to depart to a private system. Just sayin’…

By: Lee Leslie

Lee Leslie — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:15:18 +0000

These same states, sans Wyoming and North Dakota (Idaho & South Dakota rescinded ratification before the deadline), are the reason we don’t have an equal rights amendment and may well be the reason we won’t have true health care reform or a public option. Perhaps this remnant of the red state coalition could go for an equal wrongs amendment – “Equality of wrongs under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”