Don't forget the "too big to fail status" that insures that if the executives make horrible decisions and the company is in trouble, the taxpayers will cut a check and save them.

So you think that removing all the restrictions on the health care industry would make it better? That these insurance companies would magically take on people with health problems and bad genetic histories.

haha.. "you guys"

i didn't vote for Bush.

"obama is shaky at best" doesn't equate to "i love Bush" or "i'm a die hard neo-con"

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I know why it's so expensive, but I don't follow you :)

I also know these healthcare / insurance Companies have been posting record profits. I also know they talk, and adjust rates all together, in agreement. They decide what not to cover and cover, evenly so nobody overly controls the market.

as for health care, i dont think its going anywhere and its certainly not going to get cheaper. id be willing to bet but i do know for fact that some of the largest contributors to both campaigns were insurance companies. its one of the largest industries in America... do you think these fantastically wealthy people want to lose their golden goose? hell no!

Social health care is where its at... after living in a country with it for three years im all for it. considering America consistently ranks in the bottom 20% of the industrialized nations in health care quality... we cant really do any harm by trying it at this point. i mean come on, the UN claims that there are African nations with lower infant mortality rates then the oh so great united states. choice wont go anywhere and neither will quality, considering if you have poor quality insurance you don't get to choose your own doctor anyways! the health of the PUBLIC is of great concern to the PUBLIC.

I'm not saying you are. I'm saying you usually defend Republican positions and use their talking points.

So am I safe to assume you are voting for neither Stalin clones and throwing your support toward Bob Barr?

insurance companies have nothing to do with the cost of health care. again, i sit everyday with the ex-CFO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield and have these conversations often. their margins are very small.

you're health care is expensive (if you think it is for some reason) because ambulance chasing attorneys and a legal system spun out completely long ago, makes it too expensive to insure people.

oh yeah... and to add more. I want to be so large that I can have a monopoly that was found to be abusing powers and not have to change a damn thing I do. No corp split up, nothing... just a petty fine that was "negotiated down".. Wow, I want that power!

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

nobody voted for Bush ... :):) He just won by divine intervention :2 cents:

Margins mean shit. Exxon has small margins and makes hundreds of billions a year. United Healthcare's CEO got an exit package of $1.1 billion dollars. I have a feeling that the company wasn't hurting.

Ambulance chasers are one part of why they are high. Even if you got rid of that completely, there is no reason any health insurance company would ever take on someone with a serious pre-existing condition or genetic history susceptible to illness. You can yell the talking point about torn reform all you want, but there is no way any insurance company takes on a cancer survivor and potentially puts themselves at risk for hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment.

pointing out something about a candidate isn't "defending the other side".

i am not so naive as to think that one sociopathic narcissistic megalomaniac is better than the other.

more than anything, i'm interested with peoples behavior... where everyone loves to fall in line squarely behind one side and accuse the other of the same narrow minded, short sighted and wrong headed thinking as they act in the same exact way as those they criticize.

i'm not going to get into a long drawn about debate about partisan positions and their merits or lack thereof. for the most part, i would say i'm a social and fiscal conservative... and Bush is neither. McCain is neither. Obama is at the far end of the spectrum.

the pendulum is swinging, my man... everyone can argue all they want, circle the wagons, pat each other on the back, laugh at each others dumb remarks and "sheeple" comments and continue to blame the other side for anything and everything while ignoring the other 50% of the facts... and... at the end of the day, the pendulum will still continue to swing.. back and forth.

The obgyn is about the most expensive malpractice insurance you can get. And some how they are the doctors that take cash and don't over charge people, and can stay in business.

How odd.. Stay in business. Humm...

Is that the same as when we had to pay for my wifes spinal thing, they wanted to charge us $3,000 at the hospital. But we got it down to $600, cost of crap and doctors time?

The guy should be sued for trying to charge that much.

an insurance company making 2-3% profit isn't the reason for the costs of health care.

sorry... its just not.

easy scapegoat.

easy to point the finger at who everyone can identify is "the bad guy" because everyone has to pay for insurance, deal with insurance, gets denied coverage etc etc. much harder to convince people to blame trial attorneys when they have no obvious and clear, direct impact on peoples lives.

at the end of the day, the trial attorneys own washington and are continually fucking you up the ass while you are bent over, taking it, squealing and screaming and blaming the vaseline for not being a good enough lubricant to ease the pain.

I agree that none of the guys are fiscal conservatives, but disagree on the social side. Bush has been staunchly socially conservative by opposing gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion. He supports prayer in school and the teaching of creationism in the classroom. McCain has touted many of these same principles himself on the campaign trail.

And how are you socially conservative yet work in porn. It seems like a contradiction. One of the main points behind social conservatism is public morality which you would seem to not fall under based on your choice of profession.

all across the nation for the last 20 years, there are doctors (especially obgyn's) that can't practice medicine anymore because they can't afford ever increasing malpractice insurance and don't want the immense financial liability that goes with trying to heal people in the USA.

i actually had a meeting with my attorney and a group of doctors a few years about projects they wanted to do online and stuff they would be interested in investing in. why? why were 10 doctors sitting in a room talking about doing ANYTHING else? because they couldn't afford to be in private practice anymore.

insurance companies don't create that situation. ambulance chasing attorneys do.

here's a unique concept for many here... i try to think for myself. i don't take an extremely large group of very complicated issues and boil them down into simplistic, black and white, "us against them", "our way, right or wrong" conclusions. depends on the issues... depends on the facts.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Malpractice insurance costs on average 3.2% of a physician's annual revenue. Are you saying that completely eliminating all lawsuits (which would be silly but we'll use as an example), would somehow get those with pre-existing conditions and bad genetic histories insurance? That considering the entire 3.2% savings being passed on to the patient would magically save the entire health care industry?

uhmm... yeah, i'm saying "completely eliminate all those lawsuits" ... uhmm.. ok... i guess thats all i've been saying.

its not complicated. its hard to tell if you are just 19 and naive or what. i got into a car wreck once.. i rear ended a car as the last of 5 cars who all stopped suddenly when a kid ran into the road. i hit the last car and pushed all the cars together (or at least they all made contact). the people in the car i hit were fine. i was doing like 15mph or so probably when i hit them... the odd thing was that the further we went forward in the line of cars... the more everyone suddenly had a neck problem. that's the system we have. a system that encourages and rewards scam artists and crooks and that breeds asshole attorneys who exploit the system for the big rewards it provides when doing so. who bears the brunt of that????? INSURANCE COMPANIES... who gets screwed? INSURANCE COMPANIES

why is it so hard to understand that an insurance company is a business selling a product. nothing more. like any business, they want to sell that product... they want to sell it to as many people as possible... but they don't determine the price of that product. the circumstances and associated risks determine the minimum price of that product.

the funny thing about listening to both obama and mccain was blaming the insurance companies for the cost of health care. no facts. no real discussion about why prices are what they are. just finger pointing at an easy target.

we live in the worlds MOST litigious society and i guess that just can't possibly play a role in higher insurance rates?

really?

Everybody needs to just snap out of the preconeption that there is any difference between the two opposing parties. The same agenda will be pushed and has been in the past no matter if democrats or republicans are in power.

As I said. The average physician pays 3.2% of their revenue to malpractice insurance. 3.2%. Do you feel that the 3.2% is causing the health care industry to have skyrocketing prices as a whole?

The lawsuits aren't what is doing it. The Doctors do not get to charge more because they got sued. The Insurance Companies tell the doctors what they will be paid.

And why and how, in 07, did every major medical insurance company almost post double profits?

These Companies stock pages say 4-6%, and we all know how you get your profits to drop. If you were going to make billions in profits and would be taxed and for sure slammed on it, wouldn't you do everything in your power to reduce it?

Oh.. I would say so.

first random result in google for "cost of malpractice insurance"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in610102.shtml

3.2%

huh?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

next result... something i already mentioned... many cities and counties have a shortage of obgyn's because they can't afford to practice

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hco053105.php

next result...

http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporte...alpractice.htm

"In 1997, we paid $4.4 million to cover all of our clinical faculty and the hospital, and now we are paying $24 million in premiums,"

next result...

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/i...ce/medicalmal/

"Among the other factors driving up prices was a reduced supply of available coverage as several major insurers exited the medical malpractice business because of the difficulty of making a profit."

should i go on? or do you guys know how to use google?

What does any of this have to do with the cost of medical insurance for people?

A Doctor can't charge more because he was sued, he can't pass it on the medical insurance company. They set the prices for what is paid.. Not the other way around.

insurance is expensive because of lawsuits. expensive for all parties.... not because a big, greedy insurance company is exploiting all the lowly, innocent masses who just want to do right in the world

my point was about insurance being expensive. you are saying healthcare is expensive because doctors are greedy... wasn't aware of that.. haven't heard Obama say anything like that.. he's said specifically that he will go after insurance companies for making health care expensive.

You are pulling up individual cases. The national average is 3.2%.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1303
http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporte...alpractice.htm
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/pr...sp?Counter=735

These numbers are from from Health and Human Services. Those are articles and testimony from both sides of the argument that state the 3.2% national average.

Now I'm sure you can find individual cases of high costs for malpractice. Typically the insurance is based on risk and previous history. Those with malpractice lawsuits against them will pay higher fees. Just as a bad driver will pay higher insurance rates because of previous accidents/tickets.

I have said multiple times in this thread that tort reform is necessary. But I think it's silly to believe that this is the primary reason health costs are high considering the small expense it has on the average physician.

It is also worth noting that unemployment rates among doctors are much better than the national average. There is in fact a shortage of doctors in many parts of the country (especially highly skilled ones). This is the reason they are so highly paid. Lets not pretend that there are doctors on the side of the road begging for handouts.

That's fine, I was just pointing out that many of your independent thoughts are the same as the daily talking points from the Republican party.

I don't think anyone is blaming doctors. The reason health care costs are high is due to a shortage of skilled medical professionals and the equipment necessary to diagnose.

An MRI machine costs a couple million dollars and near a million annually to maintain/run. That's why an MRI costs you $1500. X-Ray machines are expensive. Special testing is expensive. These are procedures that can only be done by trained professionals which there is a shortage of.

If you want to cut down on health care costs for the average American, you help put more skilled professionals in the market. Whether that's grants/scholarships for college or subsidized loans for medical students, putting more people out there lowers the cost. Also having the government help with the purchase of these machines is a way to lower costs. Perhaps the government buying up MRI machines in bulk at a discount from the vendor and then re-selling the machines to hospitals/clinics at cost. Maybe just tax discounts for places that buy high end equipment.

The cost of health care has to do with much more than lawsuits. It's become a complex field that requires skilled professionals and expensive equipment.

You meant "locked" I presume :thumbsup

Hey Sperbonzo, saw what your religious folks are doing ...

Second Holocaust ????? What are you jews drinking ???? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh


How would you feel if let's say blacks would write such a letter saying McCain could be favorable to lynching .... or whites would write that electing McCain could turn the country in a jewish state ....


This is so sick , ......:2 cents:

Health care is a right.

Thats why the chairman of united health care got a billion dollar bonus. I come from a family that works in healthcare.Health insurance companies dont give a fuck about your health they care about their share holders and their bonuses.

I've made the same argument (I guess I'm Harvard Law smart) that Obama makes in that statement numerous times (ask Escorpio) on GFY in the "OMG!N!ggers are so uneducated, crime prone and on welfare" threads that seem to pop up around here every now and then.

What Obama was trying to say is that the Civil Rights movement relied way too heavily on the Supreme Court and the courts system in general to solve their problems when they should have taken the legislative route.

So when a landmark case like Brown v. The Board of Education overturned "Separate but Equal" there was no legislation in place that prevented money from being drained from the urban public school systems once all of the Caucasians headed out for the suburbs. Quality of education suffered because there was no longer any money to pay for books, teachers, and maintenance of facilities. So the Supreme Court didn't do a good job of spreading the wealth (in this case Education). Because the striking down of "Separate but Equal" had a ton of negatives.