Still want national health care?

[KeyserSoze]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state? What do you consider "better medical results"? What about research and technological advances here, compared to Europe/Asia? I think a big problem is that Americans wait to see a doctor before something is wrong, and we are terrible at taking care of ourselves. The hopsitals in Europe aren't much to write home about.

Spain is growing as fast as US and has a mixed system. For our mentality, if any governmet wants to close the public medical system will be wiped in a second.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Isn't this largely because of the proportion of poor people we have though? In other words, if you controlled for that..it'd probably be about on par, no? Not to say I think we should ignore it, since I don't.

Poverty does not seem to correlate with health outcomes directly. For example, the USA's poverty rate is about 12%, France is 6%, and the UK is 17%. Both have better health outcomes than the US.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

We have weird systems where large employers are obliged to grant benefit packages to professional employees that bear no particular connection to the employee's actual value to the company (if you have a family of ten sick kids you get a much, much greater benefit from health coverage than the single young woman hired on the same day as you and who does a better job).

This is hardly true anywhere anymore. Most companies nowadays pay the same amount towards each employees' benefit package, and pass the rest of the cost on to the employee. While this "flat" per employee cost is not in relation to the each employees' value to the company, it is the insurance companies themselves who charge the same for a "family" plan, no matter how many . Don't blame the purchasers for what you consider a swcrewed up system.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Poverty does not seem to correlate with health outcomes directly. For example, the USA's poverty rate is about 12%, France is 6%, and the UK is 17%. Both have better health outcomes than the US.

And don't forget the famed statistic of Cuba's infant mortality rate being better that the US'.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL! This thread is funny. Hillary a Marxist! I don't think BW knows what a Marxist is. And amazingly (I didn't think it possible), but Senator Clinton has positioned herself as a moderate (a NorthEastern moderate, but all the same). Wonderful politics.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Hillary held illegal, secret meetings (that was what initially alarmed everyone)

Like when Dick Cheney held "illegal, secret meetings" on energy policy?

What was so illegal about them (both Clinton's and Cheney's) anyway?

[albionmoonlight]

Great points as always, QS.

Here are a few facts which need to be put out there in order for any rational discussion to happen. First, we need to understand that the majority of health care in this country is tied to employment. That means that if you don't have a job, but you have a sick family member, you are S.O.L. There are a growing number of elderly people who have the resources to retire but who still need to put in their 40 hour weeks in order to have access to the health insurance that their sick spouse needs. You may consider that OK, but I don't think a lot of us picture scrimping and saving for retirement, only to be forced to work into our 80s just for the health insurance.

Retirees from big unions were promised health coverage as part of their retirement packages (which coverage they took in exchange for lower salaries than they could have otherwise gotten). Now, their employers are going bankrupt, leaving them holding the bag. They got paid less than they would have anyway AND they get no health coverage at retirment. Again, you may think that that's the way the cookie crumbles, but it is hard not to see it as part of the problem.

I'm not saying that socalized medicine is the answer to the above problem--it's more a criticism of the piss-poor American idea of linking work with health insurance.

Finally, our health care system is based on the idea that people consume too much health care--especially preventative health care. To me, this never jibed as a matter of personal experience. I have the day off. Do I go play golf and hang out with my kids, or do I go to the doctor for a check-up? I think that it is strange to think that the only thing keeping me from going to the doctor is the fact that I would have to pay a deductible. That if it were free, that I would want to consume more health care. Consuming health care isn't fun. I just never saw the logic behind the idea that people would rush their doctor's offices en mass only if it were free.

Also, consuming preventative health care SAVES MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. If people are not dissuaded from getting that tooth looked at BEFORE it becomes a full-blown gum infection, then we will be able to treat illnesses much more cheaply overall. When we make it so that people can't afford health care unless they REALLY REALLY need it--then they only consume it when they REALLY REALLY need it. And we all end up holding the bag for that.

Of course, from the perspective of you insurer, you should never go to the doctor. The hope is that they will save $100 by not paying for you to get your teeth cleaned, and that you will be on some other insurance carrier (be it private or Medicaid or a charity hospital) by the time you need $10,000 worth of dental surgery.

Any health care system based on the idea that people should consume less health care--especially preventative health care--is messed up.

(Also, I know that there are hypocondriacs (sp?) who will go to the doctor 30 times a month if we let them. The answer there is not to base the entire health care system around their mental illness--but to treat it.)

[flere-imsaho]

National Health Care is a Competitive Advantage

WOODSTOCK, Ont. (CP) - Ontario workers are well-trained.

That simple explanation was cited as a main reason why Toyota turned its back on hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies offered from several American states in favour of building a second Ontario plant.

Industry experts say Ontarians are easier and cheaper to train - helping make it more cost-efficient to train workers when the new Woodstock plant opens in 2008, 40 kilometres away from its skilled workforce in Cambridge.

"The level of the workforce in general is so high that the training program you need for people, even for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before, is minimal compared to what you have to go through in the southeastern United States," said Gerry Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, whose members will see increased business with the new plant.

Acknowledging it was the "worst-kept secret" throughout Ontario's automotive industry, Toyota confirmed months of speculation Thursday by announcing plans to build a 1,300-worker factory in the southwestern Ontario city.

"Welcome to Woodstock - that's something I've been waiting a long time to say," Ray Tanguay, president of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada, told hundreds gathered at a high school gymnasium.

The plant will produce the RAV-4, dubbed by some as a "mini sport-utility vehicle" that Toyota currently makes only in Japan. It plans to build 100,000 vehicles annually.

The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.

Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.

Tanguay said Toyota's decision on where to build its seventh North American plant was "not only about money."

"It's about being in the right place," he said, noting the company can rely on the expertise of experienced Cambridge workers to help get Woodstock up and running.

Premier Dalton McGuinty said the money the province and Ottawa are pledging for the project is well-spent. His government has committed $400 million, including the latest Toyota package, to the province's auto sector, which helped finance $5-billion worth of industry projects.

"I think that's a great investment that will more than pay for itself in terms of new jobs and new economic returns," McGuinty said.

The provincial funds for the auto sector were drawn from a fund set up to attract investments specifically in that industry. McGuinty said no similar industry funds are being planned for other sectors, but added the province wants to attract biotechnology companies - those working on multibillion-dollar advanced medical research.

"What we have done for auto we would like to be able to do for biotech," he said. "That's where we're lending some real focus to at the present time."

Similarly, Emmerson said Ottawa is looking to help out industries that create "clusters" of jobs around them - such as in aerospace, shipbuilding, telecommunications and forestry - where supply bases build around a large manufacturer.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOL! This thread is funny. Hillary a Marxist! I don't think BW knows what a Marxist is. And amazingly (I didn't think it possible), but Senator Clinton has positioned herself as a moderate (a NorthEastern moderate, but all the same). Wonderful politics.

Oh, and:


Like when Dick Cheney held "illegal, secret meetings" on energy policy?

What was so illegal about them (both Clinton's and Cheney's) anyway?

Well, you actually swerve into the truth of it without realizing it. The reason the democrats hit Cheney so hard on his secret energy meetings is because they remember the lambasting they got over the Hillary healthcare meetings. Its just more tit-for-tat (insert joke here.)

As for the meetings being illegal, some seemed to think so.http://www.ndu.edu/library/n4/n035603f.pdf

And as far as Hillary being a Marxist, again explored in depth in a previous thread...for newcomers begin your searh with Hillary College Thesis Saul Bellows (her college advisor) and just fit her actions policies into the framework like the firing of ALL federal prosecutors and the replacement with ACLU lawyers right after Bill became President. ACLU was founded by communists to protect communist rights in America in original incarnation. That's just documented history. Baldwin was the guy's name (not Alec!)

[Fonzie]

Oh dear.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

ACLU was founded by communists to protect communist rights in America in original incarnation. That's just documented history.

LOLOLOL!!

You were dropped on your head as a child, right?

The Bill of Rights are communist now. Hmmm... interesting view on our founding documents. I'll be sure to tell Bob Barr that he's thrown in with the commies (he works for the ACLU now, btw)

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

just fit her actions policies into the framework like the firing of ALL federal prosecutors and the replacement with ACLU lawyers right after Bill became President.

This is an outright lie. Provide a cite.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

National Health Care is a Competitive Advantage

Interesting read--thanks for posting this, flere.

The implication I see here is that national health care systems are not the culprit for diminished economic growth and productivity. Labor and unemployment laws are more to blame in those developed countries showing sluggish economic growth.

The other point hammered home here is education, or lack thereof. Sources of cheap labor may be the US' competitive advantage (especially in the Southeast) relative to other industrialized nations, but when companies do the actual cost-benefit analysis, America seems to be hurt by the poor job it does preparing young people for joining the work-force.

[QuikSand]

I apologize if my contributions to this thread only served to feed its ultimate purpose, which was clearly not to talk about health care, but just to feed the forum troll's appetite for attention and conflict. That certainly seems to be the case.

It was getting late, I was tired, but I still should have known better. Sorry.

[flere-imsaho]

Actually, QS, your initial post provided a great starting point for what could be an interesting discussion on a complex topic. However, as you point out, attempting to have this conversation with BW around would be akin to talking about football in a bar and having a guy at the next table frequently shout "football sucks, it's for communists!"

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I apologize if my contributions to this thread only served to feed its ultimate purpose, which was clearly not to talk about health care, but just to feed the forum troll's appetite for attention and conflict. That certainly seems to be the case.

It was getting late, I was tired, but I still should have known better. Sorry.

One must never apologize for a thoughtful, constructive post.

[Blackadar]

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

However, as you point out, attempting to have this conversation with BW around would be akin to talking about football in a bar and having a guy at the next table frequently shout "football sucks, it's for communists!"

Well, they do have a salary cap

SI

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I apologize if my contributions to this thread only served to feed its ultimate purpose, which was clearly not to talk about health care, but just to feed the forum troll's appetite for attention and conflict. That certainly seems to be the case.

It was getting late, I was tired, but I still should have known better. Sorry.

I liked your post. No need to succumb to the heckler's veto.

That said, I think that I will go gentle into that good night now and let Bubba rage rage against the dying of the Right.

[MO542]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

2) As it is right now, our government spends more per capita on health care than any other government. Our government also covers less people, and has a lower score on almost every conceivable metric to measure health care performance.

I work in the Healthcare industry and I examine clinical outcomes.

I think that your statement is a little misleading. The reason that America spends more on Healthcare has more to do with being the leader in research / technology in healthcare than treatment cost. America develops more new drugs and techniques than any other country; because of this the cost is pasted on to the consumer. They can charge more for a new drug in the US because it is a free market and Canada pays a fixed amount at a lower price for the same drug. In effect, Americans are paying for other countries healthcare costs.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

ACLU was founded by communists to protect communist rights in America in original incarnation. That's just documented history.

It's science.

Seriously though BW, where do you learn this kind of stuff? I listen to conservative radio all the time, and it's not this bad. Is it from the Focus on the Family super prayer team email list? Some secret society you are a part of?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by MO542

I work in the Healthcare industry and I examine clinical outcomes.

I think that your statement is a little misleading. The reason that America spends more on Healthcare has more to do with being the leader in research / technology in healthcare than treatment cost. America develops more new drugs and techniques than any other country; because of this the cost is pasted on to the consumer.

No, those numbers do not include research. They are just health care spending for treatment and preventative care.

Originally Posted by MO542

They can charge more for a new drug in the US because it is a free market and Canada pays a fixed amount at a lower price for the same drug. In effect, Americans are paying for other countries healthcare costs.

The US drug market is a FAR cry from a free market. Why would drug companies sell to Canada if they were paying artificially low prices? The fact is that in the US supply is artificially restricted by the FDA and government regulations, giving drug companies a monopoly in the US, the antithesis of a free market.

[MO542]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, those numbers do not include research. They are just health care spending for treatment and preventative care.


The US drug market is a FAR cry from a free market. Why would drug companies sell to Canada if they were paying artificially low prices? The fact is that in the US supply is artificially restricted by the FDA and government regulations, giving drug companies a monopoly in the US, the antithesis of a free market.

The research numbers are included in the treatment cost. The treatment cost goes up because of the cost of the research behind the treatments. The company providing the new drug / procedure is going to charge more because they need to recoup the cost to develop it and make a profit or they are out of business.

For example, if you have end stage renal disease you need to get dialysis. The government negotiates a composite rate for Medicare. The dialysis companies will charge 3 to 4 times more for the same procedure to someone with insurance than someone on Medicare because of the composite rate. 80% of revenue for dialysis companies come from payors, hence without the payors the dialysis company goes out of business and nobody get the care. They are passing the price on to the insurers. They do this all over the board.

[cartman]

Another place where some reform is needed is medical malpractice lawsuits. The lawsuits and settlements themselves are only a piece of the problem. The biggest effect is the corollary damage from the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance. Doctors are either not practicing in a given field anymore, or they just pass on the higher costs to their patients.

I'm not a big fan of lawsuit caps, or limiting the awards granted. I am in favor of having malpractice suits heard before a knowledgeable panel that can understand the evidence that is presented during a trial. As was shown with the recent Vioxx verdict, the people are the jury stated that they didn't understand most of the medical arguements that were presented.

But this again is only a small piece of the puzzle. The biggest direct government parts that have to be addressed are Medicare and Medicade. If we don't, the holes they will leave in the budget are going to dwarf the one recently projected that Social Security will leave.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by MO542

The research numbers are included in the treatment cost. The treatment cost goes up because of the cost of the research behind the treatments. The company providing the new drug / procedure is going to charge more because they need to recoup the cost to develop it and make a profit or they are out of business.

The US will spend about $70 billion on medical research this year, or $260 per person in the United States. The United States in 2002 spent $5,267 per person on healthcare, while Switzerland came in second at $3,446. Healthcare costs per capita in Germany, France, and Canada were all around $2,700-2,900. Obviously, the money spend on medical research is a tiny, tiny part of the difference.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by cartman

Another place where some reform is needed is medical malpractice lawsuits. The lawsuits and settlements themselves are only a piece of the problem. The biggest effect is the corollary damage from the steep increase in medical malpractice insurance. Doctors are either not practicing in a given field anymore, or they just pass on the higher costs to their patients.

I used to think this two, but if you look at the data the medical malpractice problem is largely a fiction created by the insurance companies in order to jack up rates.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The US will spend about $70 billion on medical research this year, or $260 per person in the United States. The United States in 2002 spent $5,267 per person on healthcare, while Switzerland came in second at $3,446. Healthcare costs per capita in Germany, France, and Canada were all around $2,700-2,900. Obviously, the money spend on medical research is a tiny, tiny part of the difference.

But what is the "markup" on the drugs produced by research? I know it takes about $700-some million and 10 years to bring a drug from start to the market.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But what is the "markup" on the drugs produced by research? I know it takes about $700-some million and 10 years to bring a drug from start to the market.

What do you mean?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I used to think this two, but if you look at the data the medical malpractice problem is largely a fiction created by the insurance companies in order to jack up rates.

Actually, much of the costs of medical malpractice here in the US are caused by the costs of litigation. The Swedish system, where malpractice cases are resolved via an informed panel rather than by the judicial system, seems more fiscally sane. The result is a system where outcomes of cases are decided more competently (since cases are decided by an independent board of experts rather than a jury of your peers). High punitive damages to legitimate victims are still payed out, yet the Swedish model still ends up being more cost-effective, since legal costs never enter the picture.

Yep, since there is no involvement with the legal system, this will never fly in the US.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What do you mean?

He means that the average drug costs somewhere in the region of $700 M and 10 years to produce. This may be the product of the "going for the blockbuster" strategic direction of drug production- the Economist,for one, hit upon the idea of spending more time on concentrated drugs. The problem is that the cost/risk tradeoff seems to encourage the blockbuster approach.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yep, since there is no involvement with the legal system, this will never fly in the US.

If you can get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to get rid of the Seventh Amendment (and its application to the States via the 14th), then it might. Otherwise, you are right--establishing an unconstitutional system is not the answer to the problem.

One solution may be to force plaintiffs to first bring their claims in front of an independent board of medical experts. Those experts can make a liability finding and set damages. The plaintiff is then free to either bring the case in court or take the damages. If the result of the judicial process gives the plaintiff more money than she would have gotten otherwise, then she keeps the money. If, however, she ends up with less, then she and/or her attorney can be hit with sanctions for bringing a frivilous suit.

This system should keep the panels honest because they know if they go too low then people will always go to court instead. It will also prevent people from taking frivilous claims, however, because there is the danger of sanctions that does not now exist.

That seems to me like it would pass 7th amendment muster, though someone with more knowledge can shed some light on that.

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this thread. And I am now. I just couldn't resist once y'all started debating con law, however.)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

He means that the average drug costs somewhere in the region of $700 M and 10 years to produce. This may be the product of the "going for the blockbuster" strategic direction of drug production- the Economist,for one, hit upon the idea of spending more time on concentrated drugs. The problem is that the cost/risk tradeoff seems to encourage the blockbuster approach.

But the annual expenditures on health care research covers the yearly costs of all drugs, which are at the time in all stages of development, so I don't get the point he is trying to make.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Actually, much of the costs of medical malpractice here in the US are caused by the costs of litigation. The Swedish system, where malpractice cases are resolved via an informed panel rather than by the judicial system, seems more fiscally sane. The result is a system where outcomes of cases are decided more competently (since cases are decided by an independent board of experts rather than a jury of your peers). High punitive damages to legitimate victims are still payed out, yet the Swedish model still ends up being more cost-effective, since legal costs never enter the picture.

Yep, since there is no involvement with the legal system, this will never fly in the US.

That sounds like a good system, put it leaves a door open to corruption. Considering recent Bush appointees and his ties to corporate lobbyists, would you want him to appoint someone to this panel right before your case was about to go to it?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you can get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to get rid of the Seventh Amendment (and its application to the States via the 14th), then it might. Otherwise, you are right--establishing an unconstitutional system is not the answer to the problem.

One solution may be to force plaintiffs to first bring their claims in front of an independent board of medical experts. Those experts can make a liability finding and set damages. The plaintiff is then free to either bring the case in court or take the damages. If the result of the judicial process gives the plaintiff more money than she would have gotten otherwise, then she keeps the money. If, however, she ends up with less, then she and/or her attorney can be hit with sanctions for bringing a frivilous suit.

This system should keep the panels honest because they know if they go too low then people will always go to court instead. It will also prevent people from taking frivilous claims, however, because there is the danger of sanctions that does not now exist.

That seems to me like it would pass 7th amendment muster, though someone with more knowledge can shed some light on that.

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this thread. And I am now. I just couldn't resist once y'all started debating con law, however.)

That's a good plan. When are you going to start lobbying for it?

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That sounds like a good system, put it leaves a door open to corruption. Considering recent Bush appointees and his ties to corporate lobbyists, would you want him to appoint someone to this panel right before your case was about to go to it?

Read albionmoon's American "refinement." They couldn't legally remove the court option, but this could be a fairer alternative. Of course, it makes sense so it could never happen.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

LOLOLOL!!

You were dropped on your head as a child, right?

The Bill of Rights are communist now. Hmmm... interesting view on our founding documents. I'll be sure to tell Bob Barr that he's thrown in with the commies (he works for the ACLU now, btw)

Maybe I was, but the difference between you and me is that, agree with them or not, I provide and cite sources. You, on the other hand, react like a college freshman in Sociology 101, doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of your liberal professor among others.

Roger Baldwin was the guy's name, founder of the ACLU and avowed communist. Now I'll do what you can't seem to, google some sources.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

That's a good plan. When are you going to start lobbying for it?

If, by lobby, you mean officially lobby, then I cannot because of my job.

If, by lobby, you mean do things like post the idea on message boards and discuss it with my friends and try to change people's minds on a case by case basis--then I have been doing that for a few years (since I read the idea myself).

As an attorney, I have a stronger interest than most in making sure that the legal profession is both viewed with respect and deserves that respect. For most people, the frivilous lawsuit debate is about cheaper Viagra and Big Macs. For me, it is about making sure that my profession continues to function as a positive part of the greater American community. We need a lot more Atticus Finches and a lot less ambulance chasers. To the extent that plans like this can help starve the unethical lawyers out there, I am all for them. Lawyers are nothing if we are not--as a whole--working for the public good.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Maybe I was, but the difference between you and me is that, agree with them or not, I provide and cite sources. You, on the other hand, react like a college freshman in Sociology 101, doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of your liberal professor among others.

Roger Baldwin was the guy's name, founder of the ACLU and avowed communist. Now I'll do what you can't seem to, google some sources.

[Bubba Wheels]

http://harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html First up on the google search, 'Popular Fronter' used as label but clear extreme-left ideology with words like 'fellow radicals and liberals', 'visiting and supporting Soviet Union", more under Spartacus.schoolnet, ect...., look it up yourself not hard to do if someone dropped on their head can do it!

[MO542]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The US will spend about $70 billion on medical research this year, or $260 per person in the United States. The United States in 2002 spent $5,267 per person on healthcare, while Switzerland came in second at $3,446. Healthcare costs per capita in Germany, France, and Canada were all around $2,700-2,900. Obviously, the money spend on medical research is a tiny, tiny part of the difference.

The reason the US spends more on per person is the markup. If you are dealing with a government, they negotiate a composite rate; which is a fixed amount of money per treatment; a lot of the time it barely covers the cost. If a company develops a new procedure, their cost per treatment is going it rise, but the composite rate stays the same; thus they need to recoup that money. They do that by charging insurers more money than the government. Now if you are dealing with several governments that all have composite rates, you variable rate is going to be the insurers, thus charge them four times the amount of the composite rate. And a lot of those insurers are from are American companies.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

http://harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html First up on the google search, 'Popular Fronter' used as label but clear extreme-left ideology with words like 'fellow radicals and liberals', 'visiting and supporting Soviet Union", more under Spartacus.schoolnet, ect...., look it up yourself not hard to do if someone dropped on their head can do it!

At the time the ACLU was formed, the government was deporting people that had radical left views. The ACLU wanted to (rightfully) put a stop to that, as well as racial segregation and sex descrimination. They also worked to get hundreds of dissenters of WWI released from prison, jailed for expressing their antiwar beliefs. How you get from that to "the ACLU was formed for the purpose of protecting communist rights" is a bit of a dishonest stretch. It would be more apt to say it was started to fight fascism.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you can get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to agree to get rid of the Seventh Amendment (and its application to the States via the 14th), then it might. Otherwise, you are right--establishing an unconstitutional system is not the answer to the problem.

One solution may be to force plaintiffs to first bring their claims in front of an independent board of medical experts. Those experts can make a liability finding and set damages. The plaintiff is then free to either bring the case in court or take the damages. If the result of the judicial process gives the plaintiff more money than she would have gotten otherwise, then she keeps the money. If, however, she ends up with less, then she and/or her attorney can be hit with sanctions for bringing a frivilous suit.

This system should keep the panels honest because they know if they go too low then people will always go to court instead. It will also prevent people from taking frivilous claims, however, because there is the danger of sanctions that does not now exist.

That seems to me like it would pass 7th amendment muster, though someone with more knowledge can shed some light on that.

(I know I said that I was bowing out of this thread. And I am now. I just couldn't resist once y'all started debating con law, however.)

Albion, your suggestion is probably the best we can hope for if there are indeed constitutional issues at play (I'll have to defer to you on that issue, since I don't claim to have much knowledge in that area).

A few months ago, I posted a Slate piece on the Swedish system. The article mentions that the Swedish process is considered "no-fault". The piece also stated that malpractice law in the United States is devised mostly at the state level. How would these two bits of information affect questions of constitutionality?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=36257

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by MO542

The reason the US spends more on per person is the markup. If you are dealing with a government, they negotiate a composite rate; which is a fixed amount of money per treatment; a lot of the time it barely covers the cost. If a company develops a new procedure, their cost per treatment is going it rise, but the composite rate stays the same; thus they need to recoup that money. They do that by charging insurers more money than the government. Now if you are dealing with several governments that all have composite rates, you variable rate is going to be the insurers, thus charge them four times the amount of the composite rate. And a lot of those insurers are from are American companies.

The composite rate is brought on by the purchasing power of large groups instead of individual or small buyers, right? If the US goes to a national health care system, they would be able to negotiate as a group and get the lower price (though the composite rate would rise).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Albion, your suggestion is probably the best we can hope for if there are indeed constitutional issues at play (I'll have to defer to you on that issue, since I don't claim to have much knowledge in that area).

A few months ago, I posted a Slate piece on the Swedish system. The article mentions that the Swedish process is considered "no-fault". The piece also stated that malpractice law in the United States is devised mostly at the state level. How would these two bits of information affect questions of constitutionality?

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=36257

For reasons we need not get into, the 7th Amendment applies to both the states and the federal government, so that does not really affect the constitutional problem.

The fact that it is mostly done on the state level means that it will be hard to adopt a great system across all 50 states. You will always have one or two holdouts. The good news is that, if states were so inclined, they could all be experimenting with various ways to do things better and learn from each other. [cynical]Unfortunately, in America today, the redstate/bluestate dynamic means that people will be for a national solution if their party is in charge of the fed and for state solutions if it is not. It also means that people will like things done in states run by their party and hate things done in states run by the other party. We are way too top down in our thinking to actually solve our problems right now.[/cynical]

As for whether the 7th Amendment would allow for "no fault?" I think so. The amendment "preserves" a jury trial for rights at common law. That, in simple language, means that you don't need a jury trial for rights that did not exist at the founding of the republic (which is why something like Workers Comp--a recent invention--can be done by commissions and not by juries). I don't think, though, that it forces a state to recognize all of the rights that existed at common law.

I think that if a state were to change its personal injury laws to go to a no-fault system--but still allowed juries to hear the claims (there would still be issues to be found--like whether you were really injured or not), it would be OK. I don't think that the courts would say that the Seventh Amendment forces the states to recognize personal injury law or to administer it in a certain way. It just says that, if you are going to have personal injury law, the claims need to be heard by a jury. I am far from a Seventh Amendment expert, however, so that is just my best guess.

[Galaril]

I am waiting to see someone use the word Pinko. I mean that won't surprise me after Marxist analogies and USSR stuff.

[MO542]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The composite rate is brought on by the purchasing power of large groups instead of individual or small buyers, right? If the US goes to a national health care system, they would be able to negotiate as a group and get the lower price (though the composite rate would rise).

You are correct in saying that the composite rate would go up if there was a national health care system, but that wouldn’t change the total cost of healthcare in the US because the companies would have to make the same revenue to stay in business. Thus, the average cost per person would remain the same. The US companies that supply services, technology, drugs etc… to other countries would have to raise the composite rate in other countries (to lower the cost in the US), but that is not simple because they are contracts and I don’t think that the other countries would play ball. Not to mention foreign companies that provide services in America for the sole purpose of making a profit because they cannot make a big enough profit in their own country.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by MO542

You are correct in saying that the composite rate would go up if there was a national health care system, but that wouldn’t change the total cost of healthcare in the US because the companies would have to make the same revenue to stay in business. Thus, the average cost per person would remain the same. The US companies that supply services, technology, drugs etc… to other countries would have to raise the composite rate in other countries (to lower the cost in the US), but that is not simple because they are contracts and I don’t think that the other countries would play ball. Not to mention foreign companies that provide services in America for the sole purpose of making a profit because they cannot make a big enough profit in their own country.

Those contracts aren't perpetual, though. The free market will bring all of the composite rates to roughly equal. If we are ineed subsidizing the rest of the world's healthcare, then if we start negotiating en masse our prices will go down and the rest of the world's will go up, unless there is some artificial restraint put on the market.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Maybe I was, but the difference between you and me is that, agree with them or not, I provide and cite sources. You, on the other hand, react like a college freshman in Sociology 101, doing nothing more than parroting the opinions of your liberal professor among others.

Roger Baldwin was the guy's name, founder of the ACLU and avowed communist. Now I'll do what you can't seem to, google some sources.

I'll bite... though Mr. Bigglesworth put you in your place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin

developed a lasting sympathy for the Soviet Union and Communism that lasted until 1939, when he was disillusioned by the Nazi-Soviet pact and broke off all radical ties.

the ACLU formed after the war

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

As Mr. Bigglesworth said:

In the year of its formation, the ACLU was formed to protect aliens threatened with deportation, and U.S. nationals threatened with criminal charges by U.S. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer for their communist / socialist activities and agendas (see Palmer Raids). It also opposed attacks on the rights of the Industrial Workers of the World and other labor unions to meet and organize.

How that means it was formed to protect Communist rights is an incredible stretch. Backing aliens right to free speech and right to organize is communist to you? On what planet? I shudder to know that you consider protecting freedom of speech and right to organize to be 'Communist rights'.

Furthermore, if you actually in your delusions thought the ACLU was created to support communist rights, do you still think that's the goal? After all, you were railing against them because you thought Hillary Clinton wanted to appoint them to something. If you do, then Bob Barr should know, don't you think?

[Hoya1]

Being born and raised in Canada, I've never heard of anyone being refused surgery and dying because of it. Yes, sometimes you wait for it, but if life threatening it is dealt with right away. Don't scare people away from a healthcare system because you heard something on a talk radio station.

[bhlloy]

My two cents for what it is worth. Neither I or anybody in my family has found the NHS (UK) anything short of brilliant for what we effectively pay for it.

My mum has had breast cancer and is now battling a secondary and the staff at three different specialist centers (two in South Wales and one in Birmingham) have been absolutely first class. Her GP has saved her life twice now by reacting incredibly quickly to the warning symptoms and referring her on.

I can get a doctors appointment in two days for a non-emergency, and have made extensive use of accident and emergency for minor injuries which is more delayed, but I still get seen.

If I had the money or a better job, I could get better treatment going private, but I have absolutely no problems staying public.

Just my two cents... from my point of view I don't know what I would do without public health care. Actually, I would just have to pay a shitload to get (from what my fiancee tells me of American health care) a comparable/inferior service.

IMO it works over here. Whether it works with a country the size, the infrastructure and the huge wealth divide of the US I don't know. It almost certainly can't work if private health care is made illegal - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Oh and Bubba, you're a moron. You heard it on a talkshow so it's gospel? Give me a break.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Whether it works with a country the size, the infrastructure and the huge wealth divide of the US I don't know. It almost certainly can't work if private health care is made illegal - that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

That's an interesting thought. Doesn't Brazil employ a "two-tier" system for health care?