ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

the prices of anything health related are too high because of government intervention. Everything the government touches explodes in price (tuition, real estate, school lunches, food)

On the other hand, the free market has a strong track record of lowering prices, and maximizing freedom and liberty

[Symmetry]

the prices of anything health related are too high because of government intervention. Everything the government touches explodes in price (tuition, real estate, school lunches, food)

On the other hand, the free market has a strong track record of lowering prices, and maximizing freedom and liberty

Huh, you kind of left out the evidence in that post. I'd like to look at your strong track record, if you're ok to display.

[Night Strike]

the prices of anything health related are too high because of government intervention. Everything the government touches explodes in price (tuition, real estate, school lunches, food)

On the other hand, the free market has a strong track record of lowering prices, and maximizing freedom and liberty

Huh, you kind of left out the evidence in that post. I'd like to look at your strong track record, if you're ok to display.

Doctors are required to do several different tests, even if they know the tests are unnecessary, in order to avoid being sued if something goes wrong. The government has either forced such tests to happen or allows people to sue for any reason, regardless of merit. The government doesn't let people buy insurance policies across state lines, so people are stuck buying whatever minimum coverage their state mandates instead of buying the best product for themselves (which is the basis of the free market). When the government DOES get involved in paying for medical care, they don't pay the doctors full market prices for the work, so they have to charge private purchasers more in order to make up the difference.

[Symmetry]

the prices of anything health related are too high because of government intervention. Everything the government touches explodes in price (tuition, real estate, school lunches, food)

On the other hand, the free market has a strong track record of lowering prices, and maximizing freedom and liberty

Huh, you kind of left out the evidence in that post. I'd like to look at your strong track record, if you're ok to display.

Doctors are required to do several different tests, even if they know the tests are unnecessary, in order to avoid being sued if something goes wrong. The government has either forced such tests to happen or allows people to sue for any reason, regardless of merit. The government doesn't let people buy insurance policies across state lines, so people are stuck buying whatever minimum coverage their state mandates instead of buying the best product for themselves (which is the basis of the free market). When the government DOES get involved in paying for medical care, they don't pay the doctors full market prices for the work, so they have to charge private purchasers more in order to make up the difference.

You seem to have left out the evidence I was asking for, and replaced it with a weird rant about how you think things are.

I would advise reading this

McAllen, Texas and the high cost of healthcare

It's pretty dismissive of the "fear of getting sued" argument that you propose. Indeed, it points out that medical malpractice suits are largely an irrelevant excuse.

One night, I went to dinner with six McAllen doctors. All were what you would call bread-and-butter physicians: busy, full-time, private-practice doctors who work from seven in the morning to seven at night and sometimes later, their waiting rooms teeming and their desks stacked with medical charts to review.

Some were dubious when I told them that McAllen was the country’s most expensive place for health care. I gave them the spending data from Medicare. In 1992, in the McAllen market, the average cost per Medicare enrollee was $4,891, almost exactly the national average. But since then, year after year, McAllen’s health costs have grown faster than any other market in the country, ultimately soaring by more than ten thousand dollars per person.

“Maybe the service is better here,” the cardiologist suggested. People can be seen faster and get their tests more readily, he said.

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

[thegreekdog]

Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

[Symmetry]

Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

I didn't write that, Atul Gawande did, and the full quote is:

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

[thegreekdog]

Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

I didn't write that, Atul Gawande did, and the full quote is:

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

I know, I read it. Texas is not all states, nor representative of all states.

[Lootifer]

the prices of anything health related are too high because of government intervention. Everything the government touches explodes in price (tuition, real estate, school lunches, food)

On the other hand, the free market has a strong track record of lowering prices, and maximizing freedom and liberty

Shortsighted and narrow views like this is the single reason I argue with you so strongly PS (you often call it trolling). Your post looks as though you didnt read a single word I said on the previous page.

[jj3044]

Healthcare costs increased substantially, as a percentage of GDP from 1968 to 2008. Why? I'm sure the growing number of obese people and increases in the average age of our population had much to do with it. But one would think technological advancement would breed less need to spend money on healthcare. There are a number of studies showing what drives healthcare costs in the US. Such factors include increase utiliation of health insurance created by increased consumer demand (which will only increase now that we have "free" health insurance), new treatments, and more intensive diagnostic screening. Other researchers indicated that healthcare providers are rewarded for treating and testing patients rather than curing them. None of these cost factors are helped by the Affordable Care Act.

Healthcare costs increased also DUE to technological advance. 200 years ago, if you had cancer, you'd never find out and simply die. No cost. 30 years ago if you had cancer, they put you and a machine that radiates a very large part of your body and your survival chances increased tremendously, but it did cost a lot of money and the therapy also damaged healthy tissue. Of course you would now get older and... the older we get the more healthcare we need (simple math plus older people generally need more healthcare than younger people). Nowadays we have machines that can treat tumors with pinpoint precision. Higher chances of survival and less damage to healthy tissue but... exponentially more expensive as these high precision machines can cost in excess of $1 million each. The mere fact that we can now discover more and more diseases/ailments and also treat them lease to higher healthcare cost.

Speaking of people putting words in other people's mouths... I never wrote that quote above.

[Symmetry]

Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

I didn't write that, Atul Gawande did, and the full quote is:

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

I know, I read it. Texas is not all states, nor representative of all states.

It's not really about Texas, it's about the second most expensive county for healthcare in the US. Hint- lawsuits ain't the problem.

[thegreekdog]

Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

I didn't write that, Atul Gawande did, and the full quote is:

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

I know, I read it. Texas is not all states, nor representative of all states.

It's not really about Texas, it's about the second most expensive county for healthcare in the US. Hint- lawsuits ain't the problem.

Lawsuits aren't the problem in that particular jurisdiction. Using one county to prove the point in every other jurisdiction in the United States can be effective, but is also misleading.

[Symmetry]

Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

I didn't write that, Atul Gawande did, and the full quote is:

Others were skeptical. “I don’t think that explains the costs he’s talking about,” the general surgeon said.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

“Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are bullshit. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.

I know, I read it. Texas is not all states, nor representative of all states.

It's not really about Texas, it's about the second most expensive county for healthcare in the US. Hint- lawsuits ain't the problem.

Lawsuits aren't the problem in that particular jurisdiction. Using one county to prove the point in every other jurisdiction in the United States can be effective, but is also misleading.

Perhaps, but it is one of the most expensive places for healthcare, and the writer makes a significant effort to compare it to neighbouring counties that pay less. I'm not sure how you think the article is misleading given that it deals with those issues.

[thegreekdog]

Did I say it was misleading? I like that article. I've read it many times.

[Symmetry]

Did I say it was misleading? I like that article. I've read it many times.

Okay

[Phatscotty]

Just checking....Does Obamacare still kick in on the same day we are set to go over the fiscal cliff?

[Symmetry]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

[Symmetry]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.

Keep going TGD.

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.

Keep going TGD.

You know, if you keep patting yourself on the back you might pull a muscle.

Have a happy November 22nd!

[Symmetry]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

I'm a man of my word, so I'll say that I'm ok with this.

Keep going TGD.

You know, if you keep patting yourself on the back you might pull a muscle.

Have a happy November 22nd!

I've never found patting my back particularly strenuous. Is US healthcare so bad that patting your own back is risky?

[Phatscotty]

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.

Forbes warns OBamacare opponents not to get their hopes up

The Supreme Court today ordered the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to take a second look at Liberty University‘s challenge of the health reform act to resolve questions not answered in the high court’s June decision upholding Obamacare.

The order gives some hope to foes of the healthcare law, but not much. As Forbes blogger Rick Ungar notes today, the Fourth Circuit is one country’s more liberal federal courts and even the U.S. Solicitor General declined to intervene, figuring Liberty will go down to defeat once again.

“It’s not much of a sign of anything,” said Andy Pincus, an appellate specialist with Mayer Brown in Washington. While the Supreme Court technically granted certiorari or judicial review of the case, it was what is known as a GVR in the trade, as in “grant, vacate and remand.” The Court commonly does this when there are appeals it has previously frozen that don’t address the specific questions it resolved in a decision.

In this case, Liberty University, a fundamentalist Christian institution, opposed the employer insurance mandates and the requirement that insurance policies include contraception. The Fourth Circuit never got to those questions when it rejected Liberty University’s challenge in a decision in September 2011, instead finding that the lawsuit was blocked by the Anti-Injunction Act prohibiting suits seeking to prevent a tax from being collected. But in a lengthy dissent, Judge Andre M. Davis argued the case should have been heard, and dismissed, because Obamacare passes muster under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Assuming the same three judges hear Liberty University’s appeal this time, it is unlikely they will rule in the school’s favor. Davis specifically rejected the employer mandate along conventional constitutional grounds, finding that even employers who operate within a single state can be subjected to federal regulations, much as civil-rights laws apply even to local diners and motels.

“It’s interesting that Liberty wants to do it, because they’re starting with a panel where they know one of the judges is against them,” Pincus said.

If Liberty loses again, it can always appeal to the Supreme Court. But the high court may well take a pass the second time. Chief Justice Roberts assembled a majority in favor of the idea that Obamacare violated the Commerce Clause, but held the law was valid under Congress’s taxing powers. Conservatives hope he’ll use the Liberty case to gut the law by finding the employer mandate invalid, but it’s equally likely the court will wait for later challenges based on how the law is implemented. Religious objections to the contraception requirement also might find better challenges after the law has been in effect for a while.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... care-case/

[spurgistan]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

The way I've traditionally read NS is him saying malpractice is THE reason for rising health care costs, or at least one of the biggest. The fact that malpractice is at best a minor cost consideration in the second-most expensive county in the country is a reasonable case study arguing against that. More case studies done reasonably objectively (it's hard to argue against the methodology in the McAllen case could have counties in which malpractice is a stronger determinant of health care costs.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm going to go with whatever TGD and Scotty believe from now on in this thread. It's a great way to observe collaborative delusion.

Night Strike: A reason why health care is so costly is because of malpractice suits.
Symmetry: No, please see this article on healthcare in one county of Texas.
TGD: It's one county in Texas. It's not representative of the entire United States.
Symmetry: Clever ad hominem [pats self on back for another job well done].

The last two pages of this thread is a great way to observe the Symmetry style of argument.

Actually its most definitely not the one county in Texas, its just that this was an example where nationwide trends were delved into more fully to see WHY the trend is real.

As an added note, competition is particularly bad for orthopedists and back specialists. The reasons are multiple, but essentially it gets down to the fact that it is human nature to want to make a profit in any business and the pressure is pretty great then to find "cures". HOWEVER, be sure I am NOT talking about intentional abuse of any sort.. that is entirely different and much more readily correctable. Rather it is that professionals talk to each other and basically tend to convince each other that this new techique is good... etc, etc.

This happens in other professions, but it is most detrimental in medicine, yet another reason why medicine is not and should not be considered a basic market product.

Just think about it from the outset.. the MOSt effective doctors are those who cure and then never see their patients again, until injury or old age set in. This is exactly counter to basic product sales where creating a good product generates more interest and more sales.

[PLAYER57832]

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.

Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.

[Night Strike]

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to take another look at whether a key requirement in the health care reform law violates religious freedoms.

A pending lawsuit from Liberty University had claimed, among other things, that the law would lead to taxpayer dollars funding abortions and contraception, a claim the Obama administration rejects. The justices issued their order Monday.

The high court in June had upheld the overall law championed by President Obama, but left room for continued legal challenges to certain aspects of the law's application.



The Virginia-based school bills itself as the largest Christian evangelical college in the world.
Documentary: Health care overhaul needed
Obamacare: what's next?

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2011 unanimously concluded the university's lawsuit should be blocked on jurisdictional grounds. There is no indication when the appeals court will revisit the issue in the wake of the high court's order.

After the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's funding mechanism -- the so-called individual mandate requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty -- it tossed out all other pending appeals.

Liberty University then refiled its lawsuit, saying its objections to the law should be reconsidered in light of the court's 5-4 ruling affirming the overall law.

Read more: Wyoming voters send anti-Obamacare message

The school believes Americans should not be required to purchase health insurance -- and employers forced to provide it -- if there are legitimate moral and religious objections to some provisions.

It is one of several dozen pending lawsuits around the country filed to challenge the law's application since the June decision. The Richmond-based appeals court taking on the Liberty University case could ask both the federal government and the school to submit updated legal arguments. The Obama administration did not object to the university asking for another chance to press its claims.

Funny how telling ME what to do with MY body suddenly became a religious issue for YOU.

The real attack on freedom here is the idea that women don't have the right to make medical reproductive decisions because some religious individuals decide they dislike the decisions these women make for their own bodies.

Willfully killing others has never had anything to do with one's own body, and really, it doesn't have anything to do with religion either.