Author Topic: Runnerdude  (Read 14308 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
Some healthcare numbers
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2004, 07:56:08 AM »
http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

In 2002, medical malpractice payouts (verdicts, settlements, legal fees, etc.) accounted for 0.38% of total health care costs. This percentage has remained under 0.5% for the past 18 years.

In 2002, medical malpractice premiums accounted for 0.58% of total health care costs. This percentage has remained under 1% for the past 18 years and the general trend over that time has been downward.

All counted for, in 2002, medical malpractice costs accounted for 0.96% of total health care costs. By completely removing the costs of medical malpractice, your $1000 bill becomes $990.40. Is this worth not holding doctors responsible for negligence that could end or forever change a person's life?

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=133

Even the study Bush is using states malpractice costs are no more than 5-9% of medical costs and, as noted below, non-partisan groups, including one headed by a former Bush adviser, state that the study is fundamentally flawed and can not be applied across all health care disciplines.

Quote
CBO and GAO both question whether the results Kessler and McClellan observed in hospitalized heart patients can be applied to patients in cancer wards, nursing homes, doctors’ offices, maternity wards and elsewhere.

In 1999 a GAO study said the evidence Kessler and McClellan cited was too narrow to provide a basis for estimating overall costs of defensive medicine:

Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.

And on Jan. 8, 2004 , the Congressional Budget Office also said the Kessler-McClellan study wasn’t a valid basis for projecting total costs of defensive medicine.

When CBO applied the methods used in the study of Medicare patients hospitalized for two types of heart disease to a broader set of ailments, it found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending. Moreover, using a different set of data, CBO found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts.

Worth noting: The nonpartisan CBO is now headed by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who previously was chief economist for President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

Offline r-at-work

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Karma: 6
different view point
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2004, 09:14:26 AM »
one reason for the increase in malpractice insurance is that the insurance companies need to make money and THEY invest the premiums in CDs, bonds and municipal funds... those profits are down across the board and therefore they raise their premiums to the doctors so the investors continue to get their dividends...

and it certainly is easy to blame EVERY president for the ills... but congress has a hand in it too...

those two things aside... I have never been on welfare... but I have lived beyond the edge... husband walked away from me and two kids taking 2/3 the income, leaving me half the debt... I did LOTS of phone calling & investigating and while I'm sure you can all quote me lots of stats on single mothers... I was there... if I hadn't had a decent education it would have been more financially realistic to go on welfare instead of scraping by, nothing wrong with soup, no matter who's kitchen it comes out of...

health care... thorny, complex issue... even when you consider that most policies will cover viagra but not birth control... that the premiums for most unemployed people are greater than the welfare payment... that diabetics can get medicine but not couselling for healthier eating or exercise...

so while I'm sure we all want a comprehensive plan, pretending that politicians who always vote themselves a raise will find the solution  might not be the answer.. not sure there is one... but keep hammering on it, maybe one will come to you...
-Rita
"We run, not because we think it is doing us good, but because we enjoy it and cannot help ourselves..." Sir Roger Bannister

Offline Ed 1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2004, 09:35:04 AM »
Considering all that has been stated so far there are dozens of small things that need to be addressed in order to get the big picture under control.  Another major issue is the number of people involved in the health insurance industry.  I have poor coverage with high co-pays.  I pay 25% of the premiums and I pay $352.00 per month that means my family coverage is $1,408.00 per month.  For what?  All of the people that handle each claim, change coverage policies, manage those employees, craete lists and make changes to the lists of covered providers.  There are way to many middle-men involved in the healthcare industry.  

But then those are family supporting jobs - so what do we do?  If we cut the fat from those areas then the unemployment rate will increase as will the number of uninsured.  

To tackle the uninsured problem - small business (yes Senator Kerry's filthy rich people) should get specific tax breaks for healthcare costs for its employees.  The government should also subsidize businesses to help cover part-time employees as well.  This would be a better way to address the issue - rather than raise taxes by 1.5 trillion dollars as Senator Kerry plans to do.  

Those that are unemployed would be covered by the already in place State programs such as Medicade, GA-MP, Medicare etc...
Last (first) Marathon Lakefront (2003) in Milwaukee WI 3:35:34, 1/2 mary PB 1:28:17
Next Up - Jingle Bell.  

Praying for the chance (schedule wise) next year to work for a sub three.

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
Runnerdude
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2004, 11:02:24 AM »
Just a note, malpractice premiums have been going down, not up for the past 2 decades. There is a slight upward trend since 2001 but nothing near the previous downward trend.

It's amazing how much can be accomplished in the current system, even with malpractice suits and everything else going on. Where I work, I pay $6/week for insurance. For a family, coverage is $18/week, more for step-children but never totally outrageous. I don't see a single possibility of any employee paying as much as $500/month for complete coverage. This includes medical, dental, and eye coverage as well as prescriptions. Go to a company run provider and, no matter what you're getting done, it's $5/visit. Going to other providers is also quite affordable. The plan is working so well that our medical group has contracted with Briggs and I believe also Rockwell to run their medical plans.

What all of this tells me is that you don't need major reform in policies to get affordable health care. You don't need to worry about the actually relatively inexpensive malpractice claims, you don't need to worry about spending hundreds of billions of dollars to ensure everyone is covered. You simply need to take a look at the process as it exists and run it like a fiscally responsible business.

Offline Ed 1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2004, 06:53:54 AM »
I don't see a single possibility of any employee paying as much as $500/month for complete coverage. This includes medical, dental, and eye coverage as well as prescriptions. - Ryan

I pay 25% of the premium and that is $302.00 per month.  Each visit is $20.00, prescriptions mostly are $20.00 a piece, mine is non-preferres so it is $50.00 monthly.  My wife is diabetic, our medical costs are nearly $500.00 a month all told.  

But with President Bush's plan to allow businesses to band together will cut those costs by letting us bargain with insurance companies as a group with other small businesses.  That way instead of a risk group of 28 employees it could be in the hundreds.
Last (first) Marathon Lakefront (2003) in Milwaukee WI 3:35:34, 1/2 mary PB 1:28:17
Next Up - Jingle Bell.  

Praying for the chance (schedule wise) next year to work for a sub three.

Offline Ryan

  • Just another crazy runner
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8247
  • Karma: 11
  • 2011 Walleye Run
    • Hillrunner.com
Runnerdude
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2004, 07:35:19 AM »
Ed, be careful not to take my quote out of context. I was speaking about where i work. This is an example of what can be done even under the current system with some creativity. I pay roughly $24/month plus $5/visit as my medical expenses, less than $30/month total since on average I make a visit well under once per month. In other words, we don't have to turn things on end. All we need are minor fixes to encourage people and companies to cut through the expensive red tape and get down to the bottom line.

Offline Ed 1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2004, 10:05:37 AM »
I appologize I read that wrong.
Last (first) Marathon Lakefront (2003) in Milwaukee WI 3:35:34, 1/2 mary PB 1:28:17
Next Up - Jingle Bell.  

Praying for the chance (schedule wise) next year to work for a sub three.

Offline sub3marathon

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2004, 02:40:50 PM »
Quote from: "runnerdude"
Actually, I'm a big liberal and proud to be one that's what it means to see through your bs and expose you for the fascist tool that you are.

you state that your experience is about NOW, well then you should know that NOW there are about 45 million people (1 out of 6) in our country who don't have health insurance and 4 years ago that figure was 37 million people. That is a poor track record for the Bush administration.

As far as "making people reliant upon the government," we already are reliant upon it for our security. Do you have a problem with that too? And, as a matter of fact I do think it is more compassionate to have the government provide a minimum of social protection than to let the most destitute and disadvantaged members of society fend for themselves or depend on the possible kindness of strangers.

Your quote about the welfare system is totally warped, but I will say this: If it allows women and children to live away from their husbands and fathers because those husbands & fathers are abusive, then it's worth it.


That 45 million is overblown.  Many of them are young people who choose not to be covered.  Also, they have access to medical care.

The "kindness of strangers" works pretty well.  Let's see how much private non-profits raise for hurricane survivors in the SE.  Americans are the most giving people in the world.  If all government welfare programs were eliminated tomorrow, churchs and orgs like United Way would pick up the slack.  I have more faith in my fellow man than those who think government is the answer.

I do not rely on the government for my security in the sense of my own personal security.  Government cannot protect me or you;  each person is responsible for this.  I make decisions that improve the likelihood of me remaining safe.  The options include locks on my doors and a gun in the house.  If someone breaks in intent on killing me, the police cannot stop them.  The police can only investigate and arrest. How does that protect me?  

The police are not really required to protect us.  Our protection comes from the CJ system catching people who commit a crime, lock them up and then they cannot menace society anymore.  That is a trickle.  

You are one of the few people who admits to being a big liberal.  I admire that.  Most liberals (John Kerry!) will not admit to being liberal even when their voting records or statements show them to be quite liberal.

Offline runnerdude

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2004, 03:03:42 PM »
Quote
That 45 million is overblown. Many of them are young people who choose not to be covered. Also, they have access to medical care.


First of all, says you that they "choose not to be covered" How do you not know that they wouldn't choose to be covered if it were less costly. Secondly, even if many of them are young people who choose not to be covered, the same thing could have been said about the 37 million 4 years ago.

Quote
If all government welfare programs were eliminated tomorrow, churchs and orgs like United Way would pick up the slack.


and where would they get the money to pick up the slack? We don't need you to tell us how generous the American public is, but I wouldn't overestimate their generosity.

Quote
I do not rely on the government for my security in the sense of my own personal security.


Well, initially I was referring to security in the "national security" sense. If you think the cops don't deter crime at all, ask yourself what would happend if there were none.

Quote
You are one of the few people who admits to being a big liberal.


Like I said, if being liberal means standing up to mindless, far right-wing demagoguery, then sign me up.

Offline Ed 1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2004, 08:04:23 AM »
Runnerdude seems to want George Orwell's 1984 to become reality - an enormous central government that controls when I pee, eat, drink and even shit.  I also must work 60 hours a week so that others can lay around on their ever fattening asses (due to the evil fast food industry) and choose not to work.  

PS - as I drive around (part of my job) I see a large number of help wanted signs (this is Wisconsin) - some people don't seem to want to work.  If I lost my job - I would work 2 or 3 part time jobs to support my family until I found other work.  Too many lazy fat asses out there are unwilling to do that.
Last (first) Marathon Lakefront (2003) in Milwaukee WI 3:35:34, 1/2 mary PB 1:28:17
Next Up - Jingle Bell.  

Praying for the chance (schedule wise) next year to work for a sub three.

Offline runnerdude

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2004, 09:40:47 AM »
Quote
If I lost my job - I would work 2 or 3 part time jobs until I found other work.


maybe you need to lose your job to learn some respect for other peoples' views. Also, by working those other jobs, those "help wanted" signs could come down and stop obstructing our views of whatever those signs are in front of.

Offline Ed 1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2004, 09:58:08 AM »
Please clarify what you mean by what those signs are covering up.
Last (first) Marathon Lakefront (2003) in Milwaukee WI 3:35:34, 1/2 mary PB 1:28:17
Next Up - Jingle Bell.  

Praying for the chance (schedule wise) next year to work for a sub three.

Offline runnerdude

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2004, 10:02:26 AM »
well, I've only been to Wisconsin three times, but I know that there are many areas that have nice scenery such as pastures, lakes, woods, etc... (great for runners). If there are "help wanted" signs, then they may be partially obstructing our views of such natural areas.

Offline Ed 1

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Karma: 0
Runnerdude
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2004, 10:12:47 AM »
I know that most of you East Cost high society type do not know that there are large cities in the Mid-West but we do actually have more than just farms.  A city like Milwaukee does not have nice pretty pastoral views.
Last (first) Marathon Lakefront (2003) in Milwaukee WI 3:35:34, 1/2 mary PB 1:28:17
Next Up - Jingle Bell.  

Praying for the chance (schedule wise) next year to work for a sub three.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Runnerdude
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2004, 06:19:35 PM »
Quote from: "Ed 1"
Runnerdude seems to want George Orwell's 1984 to become reality - an enormous central government that controls when I pee, eat, drink and even shit.


That's what the Bush Cartel, sponsored in part by Haliburton, wants.  Over the past 20+ years, as a rule Republican administrations have expanded government, spending, and deficits while Democratic administrations have shrunk them.  The numbers don't lie.  If you want your views to be considered informed and intelligent then find better sources for your information than blatantly lying partisan hypocrites like Limbaugh and O'Reilly and the GOP White House Propaganda Office aka network news.

Tags: