Health care is not a ‘right’; it’s a need
Many Americans claim we need government intervention to reform the unaffordable and inaccessible health care system because “health care is a right.”
The system certainly is a mess, but health care is not a “right” — it is a need, like food and shelter. A “right” is not simply possessing what we need for survival regardless of who provides it; it means the freedom to obtain what we need without force. For example, I should be free to buy soup from whoever offers the best quality for the price. But it would be a violation of my neighbor’s rights to get a law passed making him pay for my soup.
In the same way, a person should be free to purchase health care based on his or her health concerns, but it is not that person’s right to give the bill to taxpayers.
The 208 Commission on Health Care Reform will present a final plan to the Colorado legislature later this year. So far, the four runner-up proposals recommend greatly increased government control of health care access and funding. This means that Coloradans may get some kind of health care, they just won’t have the right to obtain it as they individually see fit. Only a free market can provide that right.
Gina M. Liggett, Denver
Gina you should send this to the DNC so they will have an idea of how things are to run.
yep to the dems everything is a 'right' and the government should provide craddle to grave care no matter what it costs someone else to provide. colorado health care is going to look a lot like medicare real soon.
The difference between the Dems & the GOP is that the GOP provides cradle to grave care for companies (also called corporate welfare) while screaming about individual welfare. Wait - the GOP says business is good for us - you know - how they either offshore jobs or hire illegals to keep down worker costs while paying upper management obscene amounts even when the companies they manage are tanking.
Last I heard, the multi-payer system costs us all (but hey - the insurance companies need to survive too, right). In fact, they allow hospitals to pad the bills to pay for the visits of the uninsured. Check out a bill for a hospital stay some time - see what you are being charged for a couple of Tylenol, which the hospital gets at a quantity discount, but charges for at a rate of more than the cost of a BOTTLE of Tylenol, claiming they need to cover the cost of the hospital staff delivering it to one's bedside (meanwhile, ice packs are free - they must deliver themselves to the patient's bedside).
The medical insurance industry is a mess - and the insurance companies are not going to clean it up unless/until government forces them to - but the folks making a profit on the current system choose not to see that.
Posted by Mary on June 28, 2007 06:00 AMMary wants government control of health care yet in another posting she talks about government lies. She is all for socialized medicine and willing to pay more money for those so called uninsured people.
Yes the system needs to be cleaned up and striaghtened out. However for us to accept Mary's train of thought, the tax payer has to reach further into his/her pocket. Sweden has 100 perc`ent coverage, but to pay for it the citizens pay 50% in taxes. One of the highest rates in the world. I don't see anyone talking about how good that system is.
Hospitols are correcting thier aspect of the system from the free market. They are closeing down. The customer, paying and insured people, are not going to those hospitols that overcharge and try to make up for the freebies handed out to uninsured (ILLEGALS) people. Many doctors offices are more acceptable to payment plans on thier charges for those who have a low income, and pharacutical companies are providing programs to qualified (low income) patients who need certain medicines.
But hey Mary wants the government she claims lies and double talks to us to be in charge.
Posted by on June 28, 2007 06:13 AM06:13AM is concerned about government lies. Have you had your Vioxx today? Remember, it will make you live shorter. But that's OK, it made millions of dollars for the manufacturer. It's the American way.
Posted by Truth on June 28, 2007 07:09 AMIf Gina is right that "A “right” is not simply possessing what we need for survival regardless of who provides it; it means the freedom to obtain what we need without force", then, she is wrong about health care not being a right. Surely, a government that is not concerned about whether its citizens have access to health care is a government that is not doing its job. There are plenty of governments around the world which could care less about the health of their citizens; I'd rather that America not be one of them.
And "freedom to obtain" also includes the means to obtain; otherwise, it is a meaningless and illusory freedom. In third world countries, the elite have the freedom to obtain health care, but the poor do not. The reason is that the poor do not have the means.
We don't provide health care just for the benefit of the individual receiving it. We provide it just as much for the benefit of the nation, for the benefit of each and every one of us. A healthy citizenry is essential to having a healthy country.
Posted by [Truth] on June 28, 2007 07:29 AMHealth Care is not a right. It is a public good, like the roads and national defense. If you can imagine how silly it would be to approach national defense issues from a "profit/loss" point of view, you should be able to understand how silly it is to use that mindset for healthcare. But that is just what we do.
Posted by Liam on June 28, 2007 08:07 AM"If you can imagine how silly it would be to approach national defense issues from a "profit/loss" point of view, you should be able to understand how silly it is to use that mindset for healthcare. But that is just what we do."
You also need food, clothing, and shelter. Should we think of those as "public goods", and remove "profit/loss" from them, as well?
Posted by Mike on June 28, 2007 08:21 AMMike - you are confusing "personal necessity" with "public good."
Posted by Liam on June 28, 2007 08:51 AMMike,
food, clothing and shelter are a public good provided to many of the unfortunate people in this country by our government and by charitable organizations.
But true to form, conservatives are depraved and selfish that they will want to eliminate this type of charity as well.
Going now in the other direction regarding NATIONAL DEFENSE, the Iraq war is the first war where half of the fight has been farmed out to private contractors who are in it for the profit. Halliburton, Blackwater, et al have made a fortune of this war but haven't come close to providing the same level of service that the regular Army used to provide back in the day when America could still win a war.
Proof again that the government can do the job better than the private industry.
Posted by Todd on June 28, 2007 09:02 AMLiam,
You called health care a "public good". Please explain to me how it is different than food, clothing, and shelter.
Posted by Mike on June 28, 2007 09:04 AM"food, clothing and shelter are a public good provided to many of the unfortunate people in this country by our government and by charitable organizations."
Yes, provided to some people as a safety net; much like health care. I don't hear anyone screaming about how much food costs, and that the profit should be taken out of it, and we need some sort of "National Food Program" where government can collect taxes and provide us all with food.
Why is health care different?
"But true to form, conservatives are depraved and selfish that they will want to eliminate this type of charity as well."
Conservatives prefer to have charities doing charitable work; not government with money taken from others.
"Proof again that the government can do the job better than the private industry."
I'll let that statement speak for itself.
Posted by Mike on June 28, 2007 09:14 AMA public good is a common good or necessity that cannot be handled as the sum of a bunch of (market-driven or not) individual efforts. Police, fire, and national defense protections are typical examples.
Health care qualifies because we are not willing to let people die in the streets as happens in Third World countries. If we had the will to do that, and step over the dead bodies, then maybe we could move towards a private enterprise model for health care. Having someone else's financial wealth depend on minimizing your health care (the current model) is a recipe for disaster.
No one is going to make a profit off of providing good health care to poor people. Hence, it is not a job for capitalists. The government must do it. Not just for the sake of the poor, although that should be reason enough for civilized people, but for the sake of our very nation. Those nations which show little or no concern for their poor haven't really fared all that well.
Posted by Truth on June 28, 2007 10:52 AMI'll sleep better tonight knowing socialism is alive and well. Health care today, what's next new car in every driveway? OOPS con't have that someone would have work to make the car and it does not appear many people want to be resoponsible for any thing so why would I think anyone would WORK for anything
Posted by JW on June 28, 2007 11:23 AMHaving to work for the benefit of others who do not work. Hmmm sounds like feudalism or slavery. As we slip law by law into the dark morass of socialism, (Joe, Mao, and Adolf provided great free health care) let us pause and remember freedom and those who paid for it. The sad thing about freedom is that it means personal responsibiity. But perhaps we could do a much better job of giving health care to the "poor", if we did not have to provided to millions of foreigners. Nah, lets have the power elite make our choices for us...freedom is too hard.
Posted by Tom on June 28, 2007 11:30 AMHealth care is a commodity, a product. If the government supplies it the cost will be excessive and the quality poor. If the market provides it some will have trouble obtaining it. We can punish those who are able to pay for their own healthcare by adding government to the mix or we can eliminate the government and the middlemen and let each of us shop for our own healthcare and pay for it from an insurance system that will be the choice of the individual. We can give assistance to the poor and still keep the costs reasonable. Check out Wal-Mart's clinics and discount drugs. That is the beginnig of free enterprise in healthcare. Welcome capitalism. Good riddance socialism.
Posted by momma y on June 28, 2007 12:03 PMFor every right, there must be an associated duty.
If I have a right to free speech, there must be a duty accruing to somebody to provide or protect that right.
So if we assume from Gina that we have no right to healthcare, this means that there is no duty for anybody to provide or protect healthcare.
This means that if a product causes health problems, the government has no duty to intervene, and neither does it have any duty to enforce safety regulations, and nor does a government doctor have any duty to attend to me at the scene of an accident. If they simply looked down at me bleeding on the road and said “bummer” before walking away, there would have been no dereliction of duty. I could arrive at the ER bleeding and damaged, and they could simply on a whim ignore me. The government would not intervene, and I would have no recourse to law. Since the hospital would have no duty, they could deny me on any basis they chose : be that gender, race, age, handicapped status, being a veteran, or just because they didn’t like me.
However, I do not think that this is what we believe, since when a Californian hospital discharged patients that couldn’t pay and dumped them on the street there was a national outcry. So I think that we would indeed view these as dereliction and that therefore we regard it as a duty. If there is a duty, there must be a right, therefore we actually think that we have a right to healthcare.
As for healthcare being a “public good”, a public good is something shared by all, supported by all, funded by all, and valued positively. Since the government represents all, it also supports, funds, and values to the degree that we do.
Therefore it has a duty to the provision of healthcare, therefore we have a right to healthcare.
So is service of the FIRE DEPARTMENT a commodity momma y? Should the FIRE DEPARTMENT check your credit to see if you can afford their services before putting out the fire of your house?
Wal-Mart, that bastion of capitalist cheap goods and services. Never mind the damage it does to the local economy and the HUGE benefit it provides to the socialist Chinese.
Posted by Todd on June 28, 2007 12:13 PM
"I'll let that statement speak for itself." - Mike
On another post you asked for proof of the government doing a better job than the private sector. I've given you two. Medicare does better than HMO and the Regular Army does better than Blackwater.
Your response was to "let it speak for itself."
So I guess this means you agree.
Posted by Todd on June 28, 2007 12:16 PMMary,
It is only because of government interference that hospitals and insurance companies are forced to pass on to other customers the costs of visits by the uninsured. It is because of laws such as EMTALA -- which forces emergency rooms to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay.
You write as if you expect hospitals and insurers to donate their services, and as if you expect doctors and nurses to work for nothing. But this would be morally wrong -- it amounts to enslavement. Providers, insurers, and hospitals have a moral right to make a profit on every transaction, at a price voluntarily agreed to by all parties -- they have no moral obligation to work at a loss, nor at a price forced on them by someone else.
Further, it is not as if insurers and hospitals have any money that comes from nowhere. All of their money ultimately comes from whoever pays the bills -- any law requiring that anyone receive "free" medical care will force someone else to pay for it.
Socialized medicine accomplishes exactly the same thing as "padding the bills" of other patients to subsidize the uninsured - whether through "padding" the insurance premiums of others by means of government mandates, or by forcing others to pay through taxation.
Regardless of the form of government mandates and programs to force some to pay for the health care of others, they are all morally wrong for exactly the same reason -- they all forcibly take money from those who have earned it, and spend it on someone else, to whom that money does not belong.
Forcing everyone into a government health care system because some cannot afford health care is like forcing everyone into government housing projects because some people are homeless.
Posted by Richard Watts on June 28, 2007 12:19 PMMr.Watts said ” It is only because of government interference that hospitals and insurance companies are forced to pass on to other customers the costs of visits by the uninsured.”
Nonsense.
Insurance companies routinely do this under the rubric of “spreading risk”.
In fact, if each person’s actual risk could be known, there would be no point in insurance at all. The foundational concept of insurance is that the risk per individual are unknown, but that the risk across an entire population can be known quite accurately, therefore if the cost of a reserve to address the impact is spread across all potential beneficiaries, then each person can be covered and all subscribers pay only a fraction of the cost of redress/repair.
The early Dutch forms of this concept were limited to the costs and the risks being balanced, with no intended surplus, but with Mercantilism, the idea was developed of a corporation who managed the calculation of risk, the collection of fees, and the administration of claims. The corporation would charge extra for the service, and become expert at cutting cost and risk by developing better estimating skills and reducing fraud. The surplus would accrue to the corporation.
Private health-insurance is exactly this, and their central motive is create as large a surplus for themselves as possible, and they do this in part by spreading the risk as wide as possible.
Mr. Watts has it wrong, if the insurance didn’t spread the risk, there would be no point in having it!
Over 40 million people without insurance, a few don't think they need it, but most can't afford it. People who have conditions insurance companies don't like (pre-existing) can find themselves unable to get insurance due to cost.
Isn't the free market great?
Posted by Louis on June 28, 2007 12:49 PMMr. Watts demonstrates the depravity of the conservative ideology. The only moral right is the right to make money.
Jesus is shaking his head in disbelief.
Posted by Todd on June 28, 2007 12:56 PMmomma y
We can give assistance to the poor and still keep the costs reasonable. Check out Wal-Mart's clinics and discount drugs. That is the beginnig of free enterprise in healthcare.
The problem lies not necessarily in basic services which Wal-Mart offers. Rather, the some people need very specialized services: e.g. specialized doctors (with expertise) and other services which Wal-Mart does not offer.
Posted by [Louis] on June 28, 2007 12:58 PMFirst off, it removes credibility to claim that privatization of healthcare is the optimal solution when it already is privatized.... not only has the cost for the same service skyrocketed (20% a year for the plan through my employer the last four years), but quality of care has decreased. Moaning about how government will "ruin healthcare" after evidence of what private business has already done to it demonstrates an incredibly blind eye to reality.
Secondly, those who are routinely pro-privatization, please demonstrate how private companies are unilaterally any better than government-run entities? Tried to call your mortgage company lately? Or Xcel Energy? Love that 40 minute wait on the phone. Ever been fleeced by a building contractor? You know.... those two week jobs that take months and never get completed. Let's talk about Enron. Let's talk about Microsoft. Let's talk about FedEx losing yet another overnight package. Let's talk about the myriad of companies out there that, despite the conservative mantra that "private enterprises are more efficient", prove the exact opposite on a daily basis. And for those that care, it took me only five minutes to get my plate tags from the DMV the other day.
I'm not advocating that public is better than private, either. From my experience, there has been no discernible difference in efficiency between the two. Some public sector entities have great service, some are terrible. Same with private. I will always choose USPS over FedEx, just due to the greater ratio of lost packages from FedEx.
There are real concerns of government-run healthcare. I myself am not 100% convinced either. However, I AM 100% convinced 100% private healthcare is not a solution. If your only argument against public-funded healthcare is private companies are more efficient, you need a better argument.
Posted by Dan on June 28, 2007 01:06 PMBango Skank : "when a Californian hospital discharged patients that couldn’t pay and dumped them on the street there was a national outcry. "
For the those advocating the free market approach you would see more of that. Not only could hospitals discharge people who can't pay, but presumably refuse to treat them in the first place. Insurance companies could refuse to offer insurance on anyone for any reason.
The free market exists to make money not necessarily to be the most ethical. Is allowing people to be refused medical treatment the best solution the problem we have right now, where many people can't afford insurance?
Posted by Louis on June 28, 2007 01:07 PM"And 'freedom to obtain' also includes the means to obtain" (Posted on June 28, 2007 07:29 AM )
No, freedom to obtain what one needs does *not* include having the means provided by someone else. It is the freedom to obtain what one needs by one's own effort not the "freedom" to force someone else to provide. A claim to a "right to health care" implies that others must be forced to provide one with health care. But there is no such "right" to enslave others
Liberty (political freedom, which is freedom from coercion) is, instead, a universal right - the right of every individual to support his or her own life as he or she sees fit. This is the right to take the actions one deems necessary to obtain what one needs, without forcible interference from others. It is not a right to take something away from anyone, nor to force someone else to do something. The notion of a "right" to a good or service, such as health care, destroys political freedom.
Every time Mr. Watts drives on the highway, he violates the very principle he has proclaimed here today. His ideology sounds well and good in principle, but not in practice.
Posted by Todd on June 28, 2007 01:30 PMRichard Watts on June 28, 2007 01:20 PM
What you are more or less arguing is that public goods infringe on liberty.By than logic we shouldn't have a military, because that's a public good. So if it would be up to each and every person to pursue terrorists to ensure individual security rather than having a military to deal with it.
Posted by Louis on June 28, 2007 01:35 PMTodd on June 28, 2007 01:30 PM
"Every time Mr. Watts drives on the highway, he violates the very principle he has proclaimed here today."
Yes and no. Highways are NOT public goods. A rough definition of public good is something you can't be excluded from, such as defense. Everyone living in this country isn't excluded from being protected when the country is attacked.
However, highways you can very much be excluded from. Reasons such as you don't have a car, are prohibited from driving (medical condition, broken the law, etc).
Even those barred from driving because of medical conditions are forced to subsidized highways via taxes.
Posted by Louis on June 28, 2007 01:43 PM"On another post you asked for proof of the government doing a better job than the private sector."- Todd
In health care, or some other area? Refresh my memory.
"Your response was to 'let it speak for itself.'
So I guess this means you agree."
No, I don't.
Posted by Mike on June 28, 2007 01:44 PM"Even those barred from driving because of medical conditions are forced to subsidized highways via taxes."
They aren't barred from using the highways, though. They can be passengers in vehicles. On some highways, you can even ride your bike on the shoulder.
Posted by Mike on June 28, 2007 01:49 PMBango Skank said:
"Nonsense. Insurance companies routinely do this under the rubric of 'spreading risk'.
- and -
"Mr. Watts has it wrong, if the insurance didn’t spread the risk, there would be no point in having it!"
The point of having insurance is not to spread the risks of the uninsured, who do not buy insurance, among those who do pay for insurance. Instead, the point of having insurance is to spread the risks among the insured, who pay for this benefit. In a free market, any insurance company which tried to force customers to pay the costs of the uninsured would quickly lose its customers to insurers who did not do this. We are not in a free market, and it is government interference which forces those who purchase insurance to pay the costs of the uninsured.
Richard Watts on June 28, 2007 01:55 PM
In a free market, Insurance companies would be free to decide who they would and wouldn't grant insurance to (if the pre-existing garbage isn't bad enough already) and the number of uninsured would probably be higher.
Posted by Louis on June 28, 2007 02:01 PMI have always said that humans do not have "rights".
If they do, please go live along, naked and without technology of any kind, for one year in the wilderness. Then come back and write us a book on all the human rights you have.
Were do our rights come from? We grant them to each other. The right to walk the streets unmolested, to have clean water and pure food. Human rights granted and worked for by humans.
Posted by Sharon B. on June 28, 2007 02:09 PMTodd, nah, what Mr. Watts said doesn't even look good in theory.
It's just a jumble of talking points and poorly thought-out ideology wriggling inside a leaky sack made out of misrepresentation patched with special-pleading.
Mr. Watts, go educate yourself.
There are several really good American philosophers on the subject of ethics, rights, and duty. Take your pick from Nozick, Rawls, Gauthier.
Since you are obviously Conservative, Nozick would be just up your alley.
Dan said:
"First off, it removes credibility to claim that privatization of healthcare is the optimal solution when it already is privatized"
To the extent that health care is financed and/or controlled by government, it is not really private. As government interference in health care has increased, the costs and the problems in health care have increased. In other words, when health care was *more* private, there were fewer problems. It is not private business but government which is to blame for the mess health care is in now.
Posted by [Richard Watts] on June 28, 2007 02:13 PMThank You Richard Watts
Those who disagree with want goverment to provide all their needs from cradle to grave. Not from the cradle but close they can have try prison. There they can have all of their needs managed for them, which it appears they want. OR they could serve this country and enlist. I did not write their country as they do not like our country. They write in glowing terms of France, Canda etc
Sharon said ” Were do our rights come from? We grant them to each other.”
Depends who you ask Sharon. The Conservatives in the US base a lot on Locke and Mills, and derive rights from God. The Founding Fathers leaned very heavily on Locke and used his writings to justify the taking of land from the Indians for example, but they weren’t so keen on explicitly naming God. So they pulled the old trick of “this we hold to be true …”. In other words, we don’t say it is true, we just agree to act as though it is.
The Contractarian philosophers held rights as not just being what we agree to but in some cases like Kant, held a basic set of rules by which rights can be determined. The idea is that we inherit and hold basic rights as a social contract between each other and being populace and state.
Others held that they were just convention, nothing more.
There are many other systems and models, but not as common in the US.
Mr.Watts said ” The point of having insurance is not to spread the risks of the uninsured, who do not buy insurance, among those who do pay for insurance.”
Two problems here.
Firstly it’s dead wrong, the insurer will absolutely try to spread the risk as far as they can and if they can get government to spread it to every taxpayer they absolutely will.
Secondly, not only do they try, but they succeed in getting every taxpayer to take part of the burden by getting government subsidies, grants, tax breaks, and so on. So not only do they get everybody to pay for the uninsured, but they get the uninsured to pay for the insured too!
How neat is that?
”In a free market, any insurance company which tried to force customers to pay the costs of the uninsured would quickly lose its customers to insurers who did not do this.”
You are missing the point or deliberately restricting the focus so tightly as to miss the point. The insurer spreads the risk amongst all insured to cover the risk attributable to an individual. As such every insured pays the price for people who make claims.
This is exactly the practice you claim to despise in government. You say it is coercion if the government forces you to pay to cover somebody else’s medical costs, but here the insurer is doing exactly that and you don’t blink. You can switch to a different insurer, but the same applies to all of them. Even worse, they all take out re-insurance which spreads the load even further. So when you pay your chosen (if you can chose) insurer, you are also paying for people’s risks borne by other insurance companies.
Not only are you being forced, but you seem to actually like it.
”We are not in a free market, “
Too true, and thank your lucky stars.
Under a free market no doctor has a duty to treat you and even if you collapse in front of them they could simply step right over you.
Under a free market your sole recourse to poor quality is to go elsewhere, and under a free market there is no required standard of quality or care. So mercury in inoculations, thalidomide, radium pills, those would all be simply caveat emptor
” it is government interference which forces those who purchase insurance to pay the costs of the uninsured.”
At last you are right about something, congratulations, I knew you could do it!
Yes indeed, although the insurer sees it as a great idea. They don’t have to cover the uninsured, since obviously they have no duty to provide care to all, they only provide to subscribers. But once in a while they miscalculate the risks and an epidemic or mass claim occurs, and then they scramble over to the government to carry the risk for them that the re-insurance didn’t cover.
Ok, so I fibbed, you weren’t really right, but in this day and age of giving lollipops for trying, I gave you one even though you got it a bit wrong.
The insurers aren’t actually required to cover the uninsured at all.
Bang Skank. Thank you for actually replying to my post. Sometimes I think I am writing in smoke for all the responses I get.
Maybe I`m not as nasty as I used to be. Or maybe like Richard Grimes, whom I love, I have become redundant.
I need some new material
Posted by Sharon B. on June 28, 2007 04:00 PMWhy does universal health coverage have to be mandatory? Why not just make it available to those who need such a plan and let the rest of us purchase our own plans that fits our personal needs?
Posted by KW on June 28, 2007 04:11 PMKW, it doesn't have to be.
Many countries with universal healthcare allow individuals to get private care, and they allow providers to supply it.
Some even give a tax rebate if you carry your own coverage.
Fire departrment>>
Nope it is a public service that is available to me but it
doesn't absolve me from using electricity and fire carefully. I also have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher.
To compare this to health care is silly but let me give you a few thoughts.
The current system would require that I keep a fire extinguisher and provide smoke detectors for my neighbors because I have more ability to pay.
We have different levels of need for healthcare and the government is a one size fits all system for just about everything they provide.
As for the contempt for Wal-Mart..Too much capitalism for you or too much good sense?
Of course some will need more care but by using Wal-Mart clinics to provide the basic health care services that so many here are whining about it gives an open door to low income people. Most of the time we don't need more than the clinic will provide. But don't let practicality or reason get in the way of Wal-Mart hate.
Let's try this one for all the good it will do for the haters here..
Sometimes there are farmer's markets where the prices of produce are lower than at grocery stores.
People need good nutrition and vegetables are one way to get it so why not have the government take over all growing, distribution and sale of produce?
Answer: Because the market is what works here. People can look around and find lower prices for produce or just go to the grocery store. If we had vegetable insurance where we simply waved a card and paid the same no matter where or what we bought and no one bothered to check the prices the quality would go down and the prices would have no reason to go down or even change.
That said, I KNOW about health care for low income and unisured people from personal experience and the worst possible solution would be to let the govenment take over.
IF MSAs don't work why did the government nannys who want socialized medicine object to them so loudly and limit them? I now..why not ask those who have them if they work or not. I did and have not found anyone who would prefer their old system.
So now, how about a real reform? Eliminate punitive damages and cap medical lawsuits. Also limit them to actual deliberate actions not the "luck" of the draw. Make the standard of proof dependent on actual actions not possible ones. For example, cerebral palsy lawsuits are based on a "maybe the doctor did or could have done something else." Such crystal gazing banks on the sympathy of the jury and their ignrance of the consequences to doling out the money. These changes would reduce costs for doctors and hosptials and then the playing field would be more level. The lack of the legal lottery is one big difference between our country and others. And no one here has been able to refute the reality of people coming here because they don't want to wait in line for care or people from this country going elsewhere to get affordable healthcare.
Posted by momma y on June 28, 2007 09:13 PMHere is momma y's invitation to the drug companies and the auto companies and other companies to feel free to provide us with defective products:
"Eliminate punitive damages"
These companies can pay proven actual damages out of their piggy banks.
If punitive damages are out of control, and, like the other posters, I really don't have enough information to know one way or the other, then the solution is for all or part of punitive damage awards to go into a fund instead of to the plaintiff.
Companies that choose to put their bottom lines ahead of our lives need to be punished sufficiently to get their attention.
Posted by Truth on June 28, 2007 09:54 PMTruth
While I would eliminate punitive damages in healtcare relatted lawsuits I would support them in other areas with the caveat that ALL puntive damages be given to the state. Not to lawyers nor to clients spinning the legal lottery wheel.
Punitive damages are fines for bad behavior. In no other venue than personal injury is the criminal's fine given to any entitiy other than the government.
As for paying damages out of piggybanks you do have a small point. Defective products can be recalled either forceably or voluntarily.
Do you think that the cost of that little tag on your hair dryer instructing you not to use it in the bathtub, the sign on your ladder stating that the legs must be open and locked before using, the warning on silicone packets in electronics not to eat them and all the other nonsense warnings on consumer products cost nothing? Millions of dollars were spent deciding on the wording, placement and style of such warnings.
AS for the legal tort system don't get me started. I have six hours of travel on paratransit to see two doctors tomorrow and should already be in bed.
Hospitals and doctors offer only one product at a time and their products in general are subject to a very solid review process. We DO need to remove the shield from bad doctors and hospitals because that would do a general good.
The slimeball lawyers cost a fortune even when there is no award. That hurts us all.
I favor a loser pays system like mr fancy pants got handed in his lawsuit against a dry cleaners. Would clean up the system and leave the courts open for really damaged people.
And I was one of those damaged people but the company broke the law by being uninsured then, when they lost in court to the tune of 6.5 million dollars, ended up in receivership under Karen Mathis who admitted such wrongdoings as trying to illegally sell Yellow Cab, co-mingling the funds supposedly held in trust against my medical expenses and refusing to step down when the purpose of her receivership was ended until so ordered by a federal bankruptcy court judge who characterized her behavior as outrageous. I ended up getting a total just over 550 dollars 15 years later. Our credit was wrecked by the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses and is still in drydock.
Karen Mathis has been punished by her profession for her wrongdoing by being made head of the American Bar Association. Nuff said. Check it out.
Posted by momma y on June 29, 2007 12:28 AMI told myself I wasn't coming back to this never-ending debate...but the heck with it, I can't stand it when I see comments like this:
So now, how about a real reform? Eliminate punitive damages and cap medical lawsuits.
momma y, have you done some research to find out how much medical malpractice spending accounts for in this country's overall healthcare spending?
I have, and the figure is about 2%. See http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0
So I have two questions for you:
1) With that percentage in mind, are you telling us that medical malpractice is one of the primary reasons behind exhorbitant healthcare costs?
2) With that percentage in mind, do you believe it's worth eliminating your fellow Americans' access to the courts, in order to shave a couple of percentage points off overall healthcare spending?
3) With that percentage in mind, do you believe doing away with our rights to the courts will drive healthcare costs down enough to the point people could actually pay for them through MSAs, HSAs, etc.?
Posted by mytwosense on June 29, 2007 11:17 AMmytwosense
You neglect the cost of extra medical tests and proceedures intended to prevent lawsuits. And the percentage figure is calculated against the inflated costs for all healthcare.
There is little need for many tests but a doctor who diagnoses a sprain must also x-ray and perhaps run other tests rather than just treat the injury.
You also neglect the cost of defending lawsuits that never result in any payments but have costs for defense.
I don't want to cap lawsuits for the actual damages just remove the slimeball factor in the punitive damages crapshoot. If it were possible to remove the windfall for the attorneys by putting a limit on the percentage and expenses and what would be subject to the percentage I would not have any problem with lawsuits. It may be only a small percentage for insurance to the doctor but the extra tests and proceedures cost a great deal.
Look at the ads begging for people to come forward if their children have Cerebral Palsy. CP has many factors and few if any are the result of medical provider's actions but it is a cash cow in the court system because of the sympathy factor and the jury's attitude that it's just a rich insurance company.
I don't want to do away with any rights in the courts but punitive damages are a travesty of justice. They were instituted to punish those who had repeatedly failed to correct defects. Punitive damages are a fine and in all other cases a fine is the property of the government. Let the state use that money to help in health care but don't use them to reward the worst part of a broken legal system: slimeball lawyers including Burger Boy and Dumb Enemies.
Medical costs are high because there is no incentive to keep them lower and those with insurance are charged extra to cover the expense of treating those who don't pay. If the majority of people knew what the actual cost was and had a set amunt of insurance coverage for basic medical care (set dollar amount) healthcare costs would go down because more people would learn how to shop. I favor MSA and I have diabetes, severe heart and kidney issues (My doctors are discussing whether or not to put me on the transplant lists) and have just had all the toes on my left foot amputated. (Now I'm no longer qualified to teach math in Arkansas.)
The general claim is that only those with good health would benefit from MSA. I keep track and the combination of MSA and high deductable insurance would result in about the same or slightly lower health care expenses for me a hospital "yo-yo." For those able to stay away from the doctor's office it would be a major benefit. Giving people the responsibility for their own healthcare is the benefit that will lower costs.
Make me God and I'll mandate that all health care providers post costs and keep a printed chart or booklet of the costs for all proceedures, medications and treatments which must be given to all patients.
Wal-Mart's clinics are the begining of this but we need more improvements.
You neglect the cost of extra medical tests and proceedures intended to prevent lawsuits. And the percentage figure is calculated against the inflated costs for all healthcare. There is little need for many tests but a doctor who diagnoses a sprain must also x-ray and perhaps run other tests rather than just treat the injury. You also neglect the cost of defending lawsuits that never result in any payments but have costs for defense.
I assume you know these costs then, since you're advocating that Americans' access to the courts be severely curtailed. I assume you've done research from non-biased sites to arrive at your calculations. So can you please provide percentages, and provide them from a neutral source?
I'm not always such a stickler for statistics, but when someone is actually proposing limitations on my rights to the courts as a solution for exhorbitant healthcare costs, I want to see some facts backing up that assertion.
By the way, the cost of defending medical malpractice suits has actually been calculated at .46%, so now we're talking an even more miniscule percentage. See: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/903
And a Harvard study shows that out of all medical malpractice suits, the majority actually had merit, i.e., were a result of medical error. Of those that weren't, i.e., didn't have merit, the majority of the claimants did not receive compensation. See: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press05102006.html
This medical malpractice argument is yet another red herring the privateers have thrown out there and for some reason, really resonates with a certain kind of mentality.
momma y, with all your medical issues and the apparently poor care you've received, why on earth would you want to curtail what a lawyer could do to protect you from this?
With the apparently poor private healthcare insurance you receive, why don't you ever criticize the huge administrative overhead most insurance companies carry?
It seems you've been burned badly by the present system - so why are you blaming this on average American citizens, i.e., people who you don't think take "personal responsibility and accountability"? Why are you blaming this on the government, who are elected by the people - your fellow Americans - for the people? The government is not some ominous entity that just dropped down from the sky, it's made up of people that through our vote, we can have craft laws that work for OUR benefit, not for the benefit of a two million dollar a year industry.
I honestly don't get it. It seems you are a textbook example of someone who has really been taken advantage of by the current privatized system - and your answer is to protect this system and further punish the people who are being screwed by it.
Posted by mytwosense on June 29, 2007 01:28 PMtypo alert: in second to last paragraph, meant to say "two TRILLION dollars a year industry."
Posted by mytwosense on June 29, 2007 01:31 PMThe slimeball lawyers cost a fortune even when there is no award. That hurts us all.
No. Most lawyers take on malpractice cases on a contingency basis only. Meaning if the case loses, they don't make a dime. And then they're out of all the money they put up to defend the case.
I am not sure what you're referring to in the Yellow Cab/Karen Mathis incident, but what I gather is that you're angry because you lost a medical malpractice case, and thus, your anger is directed at all lawyers.
So the average American should have to pay for this by having their access to the courts limited???
Posted by mytwosense on June 29, 2007 01:37 PMMs.Momma said ” Medical costs are high because there is no incentive to keep them lower and those with insurance are charged extra to cover the expense of treating those who don't pay.”
Medical costs are high for many reasons, and it seems to be impossible to hold a rational or productive discussion because there are so many sacred cows and taboo topics.
Incentive to keep costs (prices) low is indeed a problem and is exacerbated by the limit to which free choice by an informed consumer is possible. It is also exacerbated by the fact that the industry has more incentive to keep costs down and prices up than to keep prices down.
Another issue is that people are living longer and manifesting ailments that require expensive treatment not previously the case.
Also we now have treatments for illnesses that were previously unknown or untreatable.
We have diagnostic systems that are expensive and are mandated both for liability reasons and due simply to good ethical protocol.
A century back Momma, you would simply have been dead by now and what little treatment you would have received for your condition would have been as cheap as it was of short duration.
Now we have the technology and understanding to treat you and keep you alive, but it is expensive and chronic. Amputating your toes then would have required little more than a few cheap instruments, some camphor, ether, and some carbolic acid and bandages. Now it requires anesthesia, a team of highly trained staff each with training running into the hundreds of thousands, a surgical theatre and all its equipment, etc. etc.
The amortization of all this leads to a hefty cost per procedure and a percentage profit leveled on top. Then there is insurance (as you said).
Multiply that experience out by millions of people with a long list of expensive conditions, and voila, you have a medical crisis.
Nobody wants to return to the days of surgeon-barbers, amputations without anesthesia, and the high mortality rates, but neither do we want to pay the price of where advanced healthcare done at a profit leads.
The solution is unlikely to be simple, but is likely to require some hard decisions.
Bango and mytwosense
I am an adult. My choices and their results are well known but they are the results of decision and choices we made as a family. Some choices were limited by circumstances. I have been conscious of the costs of medical care for years so I don't think that the problem is profit. I might want government run health care but I have seen it in practice at the VA and know exactly how poor it is.
You have touched a point I failed to include and that is the improved treatments, longer lifespan more intense medical skills point. That is interesting but the real life situations where insurance is not in the picture, like in vitro fertilization or lasix surgery, show a reductionof costs along with the improvement of services.
Even with my insruance I can find cheaper alternatives to many of the treatments and proceedures by looking for them. I can buy many of my prescriptions at Wal-Mart for 4 dollars for a monht's worth while my insurance charges 20 dollars. Of course I have to argue for at least half an hour to get a written prescription starting with their absolute denial. But anything worth having is worth working for.
I first heard of Medical Savings Accounts when I was diagnosed with diabetes some 20 years ago. I was interested andlucky enough to be computer literate at a time when it was rare. I had a personal computer and a CompuServe account so I looked up the subject. After I had the details in mind I kept track of expenses. (I'm a real info geek) while riding with my husband on the semi we drove. Much to my dismay the MSA worked out to be better. I would usually get regular treatment at clinics at truck stops where cash was the order of the day. Vaccinations and simple medical treatment were cheaper than my insurance co-pays. When we retired from long haul I began asking doctors how much if I paid cash. That's when I learned that the major cost in any medical office is billing and insurance compliance. Those expenses are included in every insurance payment made to a care provider. My do-pay was 30 dollars. If I paid 35 dollars in cash it was the same appointment. same care.
Through the years I have discussed, questioned and outright argued with doctors. I'll wager my AMA (against medical advice) rating is one of the highest in every file they have. But I avoided a hypoglycemic incident by being able to recognize low blood sugar from the first warning signs. Had I waited for the nurse to verify this with her quite rapid test strip I might have passed out or slipped into a diabetic coma. Since I recognized it I grabbed a container of juice I kept for such emergencies and downed it. Three minutes later my blood sugar was 30 with the juice. It took 2 hours to get it up to safe levels. When my husband had his first kidney stone we needed the doctor visit. Since then he has had three more attacks. hekeeps the pain medication at hand and always has a lot of water and acid juice. If we have great insurance we probably would be stupid/dumb and just go in and get every attack treated.
Whole point is that right now we have an entire section of the medical picyture fixated on accounting. There will always be some of this but by increasing the number of people who get MSA by choice we will decrease the costs. I would not force anyone to give up private insurance but I would have the government provide MSA for all the poor people who can't afford insurance now. They will also be allowed to keep any savings remaining in the account after it reaches ither a certain age or a certain amount. Perhaps the government could also find a way to provide cost information to them also.
As for my feelings about Karen Mathis...I won a workman's comp lawsuit and the company had allowed their workman's comp to lapse 22 hours before I was hurt. The judge was so outraged by their subsequent behaviour that he entered a judgement for 6.5 million dollars and required a 25K trust deopsit. Mathis put the company in bankruptcy by what a federla judge called outrageous behaviour and I just receive the full payment on that judgement for my injury in 1990: 585.00 (I was originally told it was 550..) But check it out for yourself. Westword did a very long investigation of his about 10 years ago.
Final, I hope, word.
People who take the time and trouble to treat medical expenses as they would any other commodity should be allowed to have the proper tools. I would offer the same advantage to the poor because in my experience they are much better acquainted with comparison shopping and cross checking. They could teach us all lessons.
It would also make it far more difficult for people to dodge paying ER expenses since most or at least more people will be able to pay those bills.
Please forgive any typos, I just lost power and my UPS is a small one.
Also thank you all for caring. You are good people even though we disagree. on just about everything. I would like to give you my e-mail but don't know how to do it safely. Any suggestions?
Mommy, some conditions come on as fast as a freight train. No amount of planning or medicine rationing will help.
I was hit twice by MRSA and was contagious even before I knew I had it.
This is a world of quickly evolving bugs, and not much time to deal with them.
Sure, we all make choices, when we are well, but we can get sick, in a heartbeat, as you know.
Posted by Sharon B. on June 30, 2007 08:14 AMSome conditions come on as fast...
Yes they do. That is what insurance is all about. I don't know if MRSA is office diagnosable or not.
If it requires a hospital visit you are at the mercy of the system.
A heart attack is like that too. No matter how well you plan your heart refuses to listen and will demand immediate attention. We just were given IMAX Harry Potter tickets so I hope I can stay upright long enough to go. My neighbor just had a baby and I made her a quilt. Her sister works at IMAX and bought us the tickets.
One thing we can do is gather all the information available so we don't repeat my mistake of going to a hospital with no cardiac surgery available with a heart attack and staying there without checking until I had to be rushed to another hospital. Ms. I know better really took an ego beating there.
Good luck. Hope they find a way to prevent such attacks or at least give you some warning.
Posted by momma y on June 30, 2007 11:52 PM