Comments on: Foreclosure wave hits NJ

By: On the fence

On the fence — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:54:43 +0000

I dunno. I feel like the ‘debate’ about health care is continually missing the most fundamental fact. Namely: the current healthcare system in the U.S. is already a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy of monumental proportions. It is already the nightmare that so many on the right claim a “government run” healthcare system would be. This is a fact. Most of the people who either deny the fact or simply don’t feel that it meshes with their experience haven’t themselves been through this bureaucratic nightmare because they haven’t yet had a catastrophic or serious chronic illness.

The difference between the current bureaucracy and a government bureaucracy is that at the very top of the current system is a profit-seeking managerial apparatus that, by its own admission, seeks ‘shareholder value’ (and incidentally, its own enrichment) over optimal public-health outcomes. In most ways, it is answerable to shareholders before patients. A governmental system that fails to achieve public-health improvements would be answerable to the people.

By: jcer

jcer — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:17:26 +0000

My take on healthcare, is a fully national system is a bad idea. I think deflating the ad budget of the drug companies is a start, as is tort reform, we need to address the supply of medical professionals(i.e people not wanting to be doctors). My take is that the government should provide basic preventative and minor procedures to all americans through a network of doctors/PA/Nurses, mostly people trained in medicine through a new program that pays for school in exchange for service. Thus requiring catastrophic coverage from external providers. The government needs to overhaul patient information and should provide a framework for medical billing, a central system for all providers, maybe even a standard process for processing claims. Additionally tort reform should be accompanied by government issued malpractice insurance for doctors with good track records. A huge issue with insurance of all kinds is that the insurance model depends on at least a small safe return on invested premiums. The same motivator for bubbles, housing and otherwise has had a profoundly bad effect on insurance companies, they have not met return targets and moved into riskier investments and have lost. So in my mind fundamentally the economic problem is linked to the healthcare issue, perpetual 0% or shall I say negative interest is incompatible with the insurance model.

By: still_looking

still_looking — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:53:28 +0000

Lis, 311

In Fla if a doc is sued 3 times they lose their license.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Three-strikes+for+doctors+in+Florida-a0128328277

If a lawyer files a frivolous suit 3 times do they get disbarred?

I dunno. I do know I have to hit the hay… for another day in the pit tomorrow.

By: Silera

Silera — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:38:12 +0000

Oh ok, I get eliminate jury trials for medical malpractice cases and basically institute an enforced arbitration.

If awards start to dwindle, lawyers may ramp up lawsuits or walk away and find other endeavors.

By: still_looking

still_looking — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:30:41 +0000

How about the judges and juries? Very easy to bullshit people. Then of course, wheel in the “injured party” and use emotion vs logic.

I’ve had jury duty at least 3 times now. My sister, an RN, had a similar experience.

The plaintiffs attorney does NOT want medically knowledgeable folks on juries. It’s too hard to bullshit them.

I have other stories related to this and what happens when medicine and court collide. It ain’t pretty.

By: Silera

Silera — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:21:02 +0000

Still – Couldn’t malpractice lawyers qualify as medically knowledgable or am I being crazy?

By: lisoosh

lisoosh — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:19:54 +0000

Still- you’d like what they do in the UK, which doesn’t have the same malpractice issues.
If you sue and it is deemed gratuitous or without merit, the plaintiff is responsible for all court costs.
People think long and hard and have all their ducks in a row before suing. Controls the lawyers too.

By: Silera

Silera — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:16:53 +0000

Ha- no its ok. We do our best with it. I think I just mean to explain why people that have insurance and are happy with care would be completely on board with insurance reform. The system is stacked against the consumer and the provider and I can’t be on board with not questioning or wanting to reform it to protect a third party’s profit margin.

By: lisoosh

lisoosh — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:15:09 +0000

chicagofinance says:
September 10, 2009 at 11:52 pm

“l: it is nice to rail on the U.S., but we actually have a lot of really hard working, creative, and ambitious workers. Too bad if you want to look at the glass half empty.”

Tsk tsk, betraying your Ivy League pedigree with the logical fallacy there, no?

Since when is commenting on the quality of the economy a criticism of workers?

And what good are creative, hard working ambitious people without solid endevours to expend that energy on?

And since when was exercising my first amendment rights “railing on the US”?

The economy is broken, has been heading down this road for many many years. Ignoring it won’t make the facts go away.

By: still_looking

still_looking — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:14:09 +0000

“Anway, I read somewhere that only 4% of patients experience some sort of malpractice and of that only 4% sue. It seems that reasonable people abound, and we as a culture have just adopted overkill prevention to combat the ridiculous awards some juries hand out.”

The biggest remedy to this would be “medical courts” with medically knowledgeable judges and lawyers. Problem is that the giant gravy train for med-mal lawyers would end there. Trust me. They ain’t having that.

How do you think John Edwards made his warchest? Their lobby is quite healthy. As is the health insurance companies’.

By: Silera

Silera — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:01:58 +0000

Still- I wonder with tort reform, if it goes beyond just health care. I know they’re going to try to incorporate it into this bill but civil suits across all industries have gone through the roof.

I think one of my husband’s surgeons thought we would sue him. (He missed a perforation in his colon and my husband eviscerated and had to redo the surgery 4 mos later). We both just figured, he’s not god and when he went in the first time, it seemed reasonable that he could have missed something. Even though, reading through his notes for the surgeries- he recounted conversations with us that he never had.

Anway, I read somewhere that only 4% of patients experience some sort of malpractice and of that only 4% sue. It seems that reasonable people abound, and we as a culture have just adopted overkill prevention to combat the ridiculous awards some juries hand out.

By: chicagofinance

chicagofinance — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:56:04 +0000

283.Victorian says:
September 10, 2009 at 10:51 pm
The gross inequalities are not sustainable, but the system is fine.

I am usually dense, but this has me even more confused. How is a system fine if it produces gross inequalities?

Vic: because in a system with personal freedoms and independence from government control, there has to be opportunities for misallocation of resources. Is this a state of equilibrium? No. Can it happen? It must.

Capitalism means that in order to be superior in the long run, everyone can’t have a PB&J with the crusts cut off all the time. You have to grow up.

By: chicagofinance

chicagofinance — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:52:41 +0000

291.lisoosh says:
September 10, 2009 at 11:06 pm
#264 Chi – What competitiveness?
The economy is running on fumes. We make little and buy too much cheap junk, all on credit. Take away bubblicious Madoff style WS schemes where we take in money for doing little and what do we have?

l: it is nice to rail on the U.S., but we actually have a lot of really hard working, creative, and ambitious workers. Too bad if you want to look at the glass half empty.

By: Silera

Silera — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:50:37 +0000

SL- ty so much but he just has factor V. It’s severe enough that he needs monthly phlebotomies (sp) and we’re there a lot. The colon thing was a rupture that may have been caused by a clot. TMI i guess but we’re so used to it that it’s like talking about a grocery list at this point.

I can’t complain about his care. People think being happy with care equates being happy with insurance. I don’t see that. I see doctors that saved my husband’s life send me bill after bill and I dutifully provide the information and we get denials for the dumbest things.

We never seem to meet the deductible. For three years besides my 6K contribution to employer healthcare, we’ve paid out of pocket for at least an additional 5-6K of copays, prescriptions, non durable medical stuff. It just never ends.

Anyhoo- this conversation wasn’t “townhallish” and it’s great to have people think through their opinions. Barb, vic & loosh, I may end up usurping some of it as my own.

By: still_looking

still_looking — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:41:04 +0000

You hear me rail on about routine screenings n here. Skin cancer, prostate, breast, cervical, colon, lung, you name it.

Not to channel SAS, but if you think the gov’t wants preventive care, guess again.

Catching these diseases earlier then requires treatment. That becomes costly.

as for the health care stuff… funny. I still have YET to hear a word about Tort Reform. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?