What would you have done to make healthcare affordable? (interstate, Congress, legal)

[jerseygal4u]

So,I see lots of people are against ACA.

Yet,not one person,heck not even congressman,has offered an alternative.
I haven't read Ted Cruz plan yet.
Does he even have a plan?

I'm not sure I can think of any other way.
The current system cannot stand,however. It was broke.
As an Rn,I see the failures of the current system all the time.
As a 24 year old,there was no way in He** I could afford a $425 private plan?
No way,no how.

[Bideshi]

I would require Doctors to accept new Medicare patients. I would do tort reform to take the excess out of malpractice suits.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

So,I see lots of people are against ACA.

Yet,not one person,heck not even congressman,has offered an alternative.
I haven't read Ted Cruz plan yet.
Does he even have a plan?

I'm not sure I can think of any other way.
The current system cannot stand,however. It was broke.
As an Rn,I see the failures of the current system all the time.
As a 24 year old,there was no way in He** I could afford a $425 private plan?
No way,no how.

No "alternative" is needed.

BTW, my wife's an RN. Been one for 20+ years. She will tell you that Obamacare is the worst idea... ever.

Here's the right thing to do:

Remove all incentives for employers to buy insurance.

Remove all federal involvement in medicine.

Remove the ACA in its entirety.

Regulate interstate commerce as they should, by not allowing the states to close their borders to interstate sales of insurance.

Remove Medicare.

Remove all taxes and funding dedicated to anything related to Medicine and allow the states to do whatever they want to do, by letting the people keep their money and decide state by state if they want government control of their medical services.

I predict some would and some would not. For a while. When the results of side by side comparisons become obvious, everyone will go to "not".


That's the ONLY rational thing there is to do.

[krieger00]

I do like what Canada does : Medical Malpractice Liability: Canada | Law Library of Congress

The CMPA has also been criticized for defending medical malpractice suits extremely vigorously and turning down reasonable offers to settle claims to discourage other lawsuits on a number of occasions.[10] One judge reportedly referred to the CMPA as pursuing a “scorched earth policy.”[11] In Canada, a losing party is generally required to pay about two-thirds of a successful party’s legal fees. Since the CMPA often incurs large legal expenses in defending claims, this is an additional disincentive to persons who believe that they have been injured through malpractice from bringing an action for damages.
One other feature of Canadian law that tends to discourage parties from suing physicians for malpractice is that the Supreme Court has set out guidelines that effectively cap awards for pain and suffering in all but exceptional cases. In a trilogy of decisions released in 1978, the Supreme Court established a limit of Can$100,000 on general damages for non-pecuniary losses such as pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and loss of life expectancy.[12] The Supreme Court did state that there may be extraordinary circumstances in which this amount could be exceeded, and courts have allowed the figure to be indexed for inflation so that the current suggested upper limit on awards for non-pecuniary losses is close to $300,000.[13] Nevertheless, the flexible cap on non-pecuniary losses is a major disincentive to persons considering whether they should sue a physician for malpractice and for lawyers to specialize in or seek out malpractice cases.
The Supreme Court of Canada has also limited the types of cases in which punitive damages may be awarded, although it has allowed as much as Can$1 million in punitive damages in an extraordinary case.[14] A Canadian law firm has summarized the holding in this leading case concerning punitive damages as follows:

1. Punitive damages are very much the exception rather than the rule;
2. Imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour.
3. Where they are awarded, punitive damages should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of the misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant,
4. Having regard to any other fines or penalties suffered by the defendant for the misconduct in question.
5. Punitive damages are generally given only where the misconduct would otherwise be unpunished or where other penalties are or are likely to be inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation.
6. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but
7. to give a defendant his or her just desert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened.
8. Punitive damages are awarded only where compensatory damages, which to some extent are punitive, are insufficient to accomplish these objectives, and
9. they are given an amount that is no greater than necessary to rationally accomplish their purpose.
10. While normally the state would be the recipient of any fine or penalty for misconduct, the plaintiff will keep punitive damages as a "windfall" in addition to compensatory damages.
11. Judges and juries in our system have usually found that moderate awards of punitive damages, which inevitably carry a stigma in the broader community, are generally sufficient.[15]

Thus, punitive damages in tort actions in Canada are relatively rare.

[mainebrokerman]

good answers..

the dems pass aca, and exempt themselves(congress) from it??? what kind of hypocrisy is this??


you want a health-care system thats "fair"
then demand fairness, with ALL federal and state employees..


if you saw benefit packages, that we the private sector are paying for (government employees) you will see many have a free ride.

[krieger00]

Originally Posted by mainebrokerman

good answers..

the dems pass aca, and exempt themselves(congress) from it??? what kind of hypocrisy is this??


you want a health-care system thats "fair"
then demand fairness, with ALL federal and state employees..


if you saw benefit packages, that we the private sector is paying for (government employees) you will see many have a free ride

That is what the left is all about . I know what is best for you but I am better then you so i not going to do it but it is good for you.

It is kinda like teaching your son not to hit woman but you punch your wife's in the face in every night . Then try to tell your son not to do the same.

That is the mind set of some people on the left .

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

I would require Doctors to accept new Medicare patients. I would do tort reform to take the excess out of malpractice suits.

You do realize that slavery is unconstitutional in the US, right?

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

You do realize that slavery is unconstitutional in the US, right?

The goverment tells me who I have to rent to, so why shouldn't doctors have to accept me as a patient?

[chuckmann]

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

So,I see lots of people are against ACA.

Yet,not one person,heck not even congressman,has offered an alternative.
I haven't read Ted Cruz plan yet.
Does he even have a plan?

I'm not sure I can think of any other way.
The current system cannot stand,however. It was broke.
As an Rn,I see the failures of the current system all the time.
As a 24 year old,there was no way in He** I could afford a $425 private plan?
No way,no how.

Affordable to whom?

As a fan and admirer of Elizabeth Emkin, now candidate for California 7 congress person, I agree that the key to health care reform is tax reform.

Allow the insurance companies to offer their products nationwide.

For the poor, st up something like we have in the auto insurance industry - assigned risk pools.

Stop trying to solve the very real problem of healthcare for the poor by destroying healthcare for everyone else.

For the most part, the free market works. So use it. And for those places where the free market does NOT work, address those situations as needed.

[BMORE]

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

So,I see lots of people are against ACA.

Yet,not one person,heck not even congressman,has offered an alternative.
I haven't read Ted Cruz plan yet.
Does he even have a plan?

I'm not sure I can think of any other way.
The current system cannot stand,however. It was broke.
As an Rn,I see the failures of the current system all the time.
As a 24 year old,there was no way in He** I could afford a $425 private plan?
No way,no how.

For starters, there should be Congressional Hearings involving the actual cost of health-care not necessarily the insurance prices, I wouldn't mind the heads of the leading Hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, device manufactures, and etc all to attend the Congressional Hearings and simply answer "Why are you charging this much for your products?" Now as I've stated dozens of times on this site, I'm not against the ACA, I'm against the mandate. Who could be against far cheaper insurance options? Well, we know who could be against that but still..