U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2007, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC
1,105 posts, read 4,170,807 times
Reputation: 628

Advertisements

Couldn't there be some way to limit what a doctor can be sued for instead of capping damages. I am all for sueing a doctor for everything he has if he practices drunk or something blatently negligent like that but I am against a doctor being sued for making an honest mistake. Or maybe these doctors being sued for honest mistakes is more media hype and not as big a problem as it seems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-29-2007, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Your mind
2,923 posts, read 4,569,286 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Apples and oranges

In a criminal case, the victim has essentially nothing to do with the case. The "State" is the Plaintiff (State v ......). And, in many criminal cases, the court DOES ORDER restititution

In a civil case, it is different. And, the right to sue is, and has been, to make someone "whole" - the concept of "punishing" (punitive damages) is a fairly recent adjunct. If you want punitive damages - cap them. As it is right now, you can get a compensatory damage award of $1.00 and a punitive damage award of $10,000,000. Does not compute.

As an aside, I have been involved in a fair amount of jury polling after trial - and when asked about punitive damages that were awarded, the most common answer is "oh, it is just the insurance company paying - not the defendant" or "there is no problem - it's not like the doctor is paying this out of his pocket".

And, IMO, therein lies the problem.
A strict cap on punitive damages would make them completely nominal and useless against many of the larger and wealthier corporations... however, I could support capping punitive damages at a certain percentage of an individual's or corporation's income. It wouldn't do much to cut healthcare costs, though. Malpractice insurance makes up a small fraction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2007, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 13,479,645 times
Reputation: 4884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Ok, let me ask you (and everyone else) some BASIC QUESTIONS:

Assuming there is majority support for a single payer health insurance program: How do you implement it? Treat it like any other insurance program with premiums and co-pays - just base it off of income percentages

How do you get everyone to pay into it (remembering not everyone is employed or has deductions or the underground economy)? Only people who work and pay into it will get the benefits

How big would the federal bureauacy have to be to implement a single payer system? Eh, I'm sure if we incorporated the Medicaid and Medicare bureacracy, we should have enough

Would people be allowed to "Opt out" of such a system? Most definitely, if you want to keep your private insurance, be my guest
Sounds like a plan to me...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2007, 06:46 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,920 posts, read 102,388,879 times
Reputation: 32974
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
Does anybody wonder why the Big 3 automakers are shifting production to Canada? They can account the cost of health care differently by not figuring it into the cost of production since they are not paying directly for it.
They are not paying directly for it, but they pay a lot in taxes. I've been there, and been appalled at the tax rates there. Building cars in Canada is nothing new; I had a 73 Ford Pinto that was built there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 2 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,920 posts, read 102,388,879 times
Reputation: 32974
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenn02674 View Post
I am not sure I understand your point. Doctors automatically prescribe antibiotics all the time here in the US without cultures. I actually was prescribed antibiotics a couple of years ago without a throat culture because I started feeling bad right after my son had a confirmed case of strep throat. I normall avoid antibiotics at all costs because of the overuse is a HUGE concern of mine and they also wreak havoc on you, but since my son had just had it, I thought it was a reasonable assumption.

Yes there are always going to be "bad apples" and people that abuse the system.
Not at the office where I work, they don't. I don't think it's system abuse; it's learning to play by the system's rules. Cheaper for the govt. for the pt to pay for the drugs than for the govt to pay for the throat culture. It is practically automatic to do a throat culture at every office I have worked at or been a patient at.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2007, 06:40 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,556 posts, read 19,278,685 times
Reputation: 2499
Kuharai you posted:


Quote:
Assuming there is majority support for a single payer health insurance program: How do you implement it? Treat it like any other insurance program with premiums and co-pays - just base it off of income percentages

How do you get everyone to pay into it (remembering not everyone is employed or has deductions or the underground economy)? Only people who work and pay into it will get the benefits

How big would the federal bureauacy have to be to implement a single payer system? Eh, I'm sure if we incorporated the Medicaid and Medicare bureacracy, we should have enough

Would people be allowed to "Opt out" of such a system? Most definitely, if you want to keep your private insurance, be my guest
Income percentages,what do you mean by this?
Everyone pays 5%(for example)??

If only those working receive benefits, that would leave a lot who do not work uninsured.

As the system would cover every person(minus those who have not paid in) it would have a lot more customers than both those other systems woudln't it??

Agree on the last point,if you don't want to pay in,you don't have to...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-30-2007, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Askim, Norway
231 posts, read 641,993 times
Reputation: 96
free health care. lets taste this fore a sec..

ok.. what u say free health care. Norway have this.. Tho its realy not free health care in that sence most here seems to think.

We pay high tax for health care. (and other stuff)
then from that hospitals, Er's and so on geet a founds evry year. this is calculated acording to area and pep who live there.

hospitals have to save,cut jus tlike privat busnises do. if the use to much money

the hospital have to balance. tho it is a xktra found for emergancy. and they always geet help from goverment. but the hospital director might geet canned if he needs too much extra founds. like a bad company director geets if he looses alot of cash.

but like USA no one ever lays bleeding in the streets. no one is denied care..
Then also like USA mistakes are made. doctors, nurses make wrong. and send pep to early home. or give wrong treathment.
Like in USA this are personal mistakes not system errors. jus tlike USA evry thing wrong in hospitals are not system errors.

and like many hospitals in USA some hospitals are over worked. this gives waiting time.

so some use private hospitals to shorten this.
and if its a surgery/treathment that shud be covered by health care. u geet ur expenses back after a time.

somtimes norwegian health care sends patients out side the country.. even USA. (for difrent reasons)

So then top of that.

here we also geet founds for lost income.
if i geet serius sick. and stay 2 months in a hospital. the care is "free" i already paid for it. I also geet about 80% of my income from health system. so i can pay my loan car phone and so on. This is also somthing i have payed for in tax. so its not free.
(asume u have insuransce for this)

Fails happens yeas. can ouer system improve yeas.
i feel that improves can be done in USA too.
But its realy dificult to make a total change.

ur system is realy built in. and i agree with those of u that feels tha tur goverment are not ready for full health care controll.

it has been implented for a long time here. and still is not perfect. (dont think this can be perfect. some one always falls out)

U might need to make regulations difrent on how insurance can work.
perhaps make doctors deside. force insurance to hire real doctors to review payments and need's

and i one thing..

if u here in Norway do not go to the doctor or hospital. same thing will happen like in USA. u wont geet treated.

to geet treated u acctuly have to go to a doctor or hospital. (or call 911)


TJ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 04:25 PM
 
893 posts, read 626,193 times
Reputation: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
I am sure people die all the tme,point is if it happens under a NHS what is the point in having it?
And again,Australia is an industrialised nation with a national health system and life expectancy is lower there....

Oddly enough Puerto Rico has a higher life expectancy than the USA....do THEY have free healthcare?


Life expectancy has very little to do with healthcare. Americans simply eat too much, and exercise too little. It is that simple. No amount of healthcare is going to save this nation, if the lifestyles of americans don't change.

This is why it is funny when people talk about Japan, Italy, or even France. These countries eat very well(olive oil, fresh fruits and vegetables, less meat), and walk much more.

I am not saying, healthcare will not improve the health of the USA, but to blame healthcare for our ills is ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2008, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
19,501 posts, read 20,861,578 times
Reputation: 13804
Quote:
Originally Posted by moionfire View Post
Life expectancy has very little to do with healthcare. Americans simply eat too much, and exercise too little. It is that simple. No amount of healthcare is going to save this nation, if the lifestyles of americans don't change.

This is why it is funny when people talk about Japan, Italy, or even France. These countries eat very well(olive oil, fresh fruits and vegetables, less meat), and walk much more.

I am not saying, healthcare will not improve the health of the USA, but to blame healthcare for our ills is ridiculous.
I would urge everyone not to confuse healthcare with healthcare insurance.

The latter is the problem, not the former.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:35 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top