Cheney treated like others, angry about it

i don't know how to handle the malpractice. I'm old school, and if a doctor screws me up, i want paid. thats why he gets to enjoy a 6 figure salary, the responsibility goes with it. now i agree, there are alot of frivolous lawsuits around, and they should be handled with common sense, and thrown out of court. but who gets trusted with that job? and crazycanuck, care to tell us how you like canadas health care system( thats govt run?)

Everyone may receive coverage but it's going to be under the restraints of a budget rather than market competition. If the budget only allows for X number of procedures per month then our grandmother's are SOL until her name on the waiting list gets called. Also, to keep within budget guidelines personnel, supplies and equipment will not be top-notch.

The one item I wish would be regulated by the government is malpractice lawsuits. Too many ambulance chasing lawyers try to get something out of nothing which in turn raises hospital costs for you and me.

Too bad we can't count on the gov't to do it right. :(

i don't know how to handle the malpractice. I'm old school, and if a doctor screws me up, i want paid. thats why he gets to enjoy a 6 figure salary, the responsibility goes with it. now i agree, there are alot of frivolous lawsuits around, and they should be handled with common sense, and thrown out of court. but who gets trusted with that job? and crazycanuck, care to tell us how you like canadas health care system( thats govt run?)

The AMA and the republicans have done a wonderful job making it appear as though there are too many frivolous lawsuits. I worked in a plaintiff's-side firm that did a lot of medmal work and I can tell you that attorneys rarely file frivolous medmal suits. Medmal suits are taken on a contingency basis, meaning that if the lawyer doesn't recover anything, the lawyer doesn't get paid. In fact, if the lawyer doesn't recover anything, the lawyer eats the cost of the suit (which can amount to literally hundreds of thousands of dollars). So, when lawyers agree to represent someone in a medmal case, they rarely do so without undergoing a thorough cost-benefit analysis that frivolous suits rarely pass.

I know the press is great at finding "frivolous" suits in court dockets. I know from firsthand experience, however, that they rarely understand what is going in a case. Moreover, they are newsworthy because they are unusual.

While OB-GYNs can get hit with huge judgments if they were negligent or reckless, they are also very, very highly paid. Moreover, who should bear the cost of the OB-GYN's negligence/recklessness? I don't think it's fair for the victims to have to simply "eat it." I also don't think taxpayers should have to "eat it." So, in my mind, the insurance carriers who the doctors are paying millions to should have to bear the cost.

I would like to see how a republican would react to getting his penis chopped to pieces (http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=33257&in_page_id=2).

This begs the question, what is your penis worth?

this reminds me of a funny story. former senator rick santorum, decided one his big issues was to fight against big malpractice suits. the day before his big speech, his wife received approx $395,000 settlement from a doctor, for screwing up her back. you know the saying, does as i say, not as i do. this story was run in our local paper, so i really don't know if there is any truth to it

i think it should be run and handled by the govt. that way everyone receives coverage, and the prices stay in line. there is no reason that a certain procedure costs x amount at one doctor, and the same procedure at a different doctor costs more( or different) and to say it needs some work is the understatement of the year
I have several problems with a one payer goverment system.
1. People running for office or trying to hold their office buying votes by saying they will get certain things not covered by insurance covered. Thus buying votes and driving up cost. This is the biggest problem driving up cost. 2. Name one Goverment Program that has stayed at or below budget. The goverment has a very poor record.
3. If you limit saleries of Doctors (which will be done) then less will enter the field and the smater ones will go into jobs that pay more.
4. It gives the goverment more power over us and it gives them control over 7% of our ecomomy.
Thats just a few of the problems. You said why should one doctor charge X and the other charges more. Maybe one doctor gives more care has more over head is more qualified etc...

I don't know why people haven't simply talked about reducing medicaid eligibility requirements and boosting medicaid funding. It seems like an answer that addresses the biggest criticism of the "current system," namely that so many have no health care coverage.

I don't know why people haven't simply talked about reducing medicaid eligibility requirements and boosting medicaid funding. It seems like an answer that addresses the biggest criticism of the "current system," namely that so many have no health care coverage.
The number of Americans without coverage is advertised at 40,000,000 which when we hear we think of that many people who cannot afford coverage. Thats a bunch of bull. How many of those people are young just out of schoool and choose not to buy health cov. because they don't see a need? How many families buy that new car or new toy instead of health ins.? How many can afford but have never had a health issue so they take the risk of no health cov? How many people just don't want to work a little harder to afford cov.? My point is that the number of people who cannot afford Health Ins. is much smaller than the Goverment wants us to know so they can solve the problem making more people dependent upon them. The Health savings plan is very affordable to most but people want everthing covered which those plans are expensive. Plus the states and Fed. goverment mandate that certain thing are covered under all policies which drive the cost way up. Some examples are drug addiction, maternity (even if you won't have or can't have a child), mental health cov, etc.. which you have to pay for even if you do not need the coverage.

The number of Americans without coverage is advertised at 40,000,000 which when we hear we think of that many people who cannot afford coverage. Thats a bunch of bull. How many of those people are young just out of schoool and choose not to buy health cov. because they don't see a need? How many families buy that new car or new toy instead of health ins.? How many can afford but have never had a health issue so they take the risk of no health cov? How many people just don't want to work a little harder to afford cov.? My point is that the number of people who cannot afford Health Ins. is much smaller than the Goverment wants us to know so they can solve the problem making more people dependent upon them. The Health savings plan is very affordable to most but people want everthing covered which those plans are expensive. Plus the states and Fed. goverment mandate that certain thing are covered under all policies which drive the cost way up. Some examples are drug addiction, maternity (even if you won't have or can't have a child), mental health cov, etc.. which you have to pay for even if you do not need the coverage.

Define affordable.

Saving health plans start around $230 to $350 with some high and some lower.