On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 04:12:46 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


It's $500-$1k to walk into a hospital for a couple stitches
nowadays, too. That's routine, wasn't expensive to learn
(over and above medical school), and takes no drugs. And
aspirin (Tylenol now) shouldn't cost $5-8 a tab.

Greed, waste, and inefficiency come to mind.

No doubt greed, waste, and inefficiency add tremendously to the costs.
But let's imagine for a moment that all three could be eliminated.
Those who can afford to pay for their care would *still* have to pay a
bunch extra to cover treatment for the poor and those who can't afford
much of anything after paying their bar/cigs/gambling etc. tabs. Might
as well make it official as other countries do, and gain all the
advantages of a single-payer system, which usually includes cutting
down on greed, waste, and inefficiency.

Wayne

In article , Gary Coffman says...

At some point it becomes attractive to self insure. Ie, just
pay the friggin bill yerself. I've calculated that even with
the two or three events that have happended in our family
in the past few years, we still would be ahead if we had done
this. Obviously YMMV.

That's fine, unless you have a catastrophic event. Then the
bills will dwarf what you're able to pay. What I've advocated
is that people only buy catastrophic coverage. That's relatively
cheap. Pay the ordinary nickel and dime medical costs out of
your pocket, but have that backstop for the really expensive
catastrophic event that may or may not come along.

In this case, "nickel and dime" catagory means, less than
a thousand dollars or so. Maybe less then five thousand.
Thing is, I don't think my employer offers a policy like that,
that only kicks in if the bill goes over several thousand.
Its a gread idea though.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Aug 2004 07:48:04 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gary Coffman says...

At some point it becomes attractive to self insure. Ie, just
pay the friggin bill yerself. I've calculated that even with
the two or three events that have happended in our family
in the past few years, we still would be ahead if we had done
this. Obviously YMMV.

That's fine, unless you have a catastrophic event. Then the
bills will dwarf what you're able to pay. What I've advocated
is that people only buy catastrophic coverage. That's relatively
cheap. Pay the ordinary nickel and dime medical costs out of
your pocket, but have that backstop for the really expensive
catastrophic event that may or may not come along.

In this case, "nickel and dime" catagory means, less than
a thousand dollars or so. Maybe less then five thousand.
Thing is, I don't think my employer offers a policy like that,
that only kicks in if the bill goes over several thousand.
Its a gread idea though.

Jim

I provide my employees health insurance. I pay the first thousand,
they pay the next two thousand and then insurance kicks in. That first
thousand encourages annual physicals and immunizations. Still, it
costs $450 a head.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:57:32 -0400, Gary Coffman
calmly ranted:


On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:20:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

So why is it harder to get a routine heart transplant now
than it was 30 years ago? Why does that cost 20 times as
much as it did then, when the only specialist was 1,000
miles away in a special hospital? (These figures are from
the same thin air you grasped that earlier comment

30 years ago heart transplants were *not* routine. They
were experimental, and most of the people who got them
didn't live more than a few weeks or months.


No, I meant that -today- they were routine; you can get
one from a backwater hospital.



It has taken a *huge* amount of work to learn how to
make transplants routine. That work was extremely
expensive, and the drug companies, doctors, hospitals,
etc are now trying to recoup those costs.


It's $500-$1k to walk into a hospital for a couple stitches
nowadays, too. That's routine, wasn't expensive to learn
(over and above medical school), and takes no drugs. And
aspirin (Tylenol now) shouldn't cost $5-8 a tab.

Greed, waste, and inefficiency come to mind.

Obviously there is something seriously wrong here. For example, my wife
and I were living in Italy 3 years ago when she came down with a severe
case of bronchitis. As U.S. citizens we were not covered by the Italian
national health insurance, so we had to call a local physician and were
prepared to pay through the nose, as we had heard all the horror stories
and propaganda about the exorbinant fees charged non-covered individuals
in Europe.

Much to our surprise, the doctor actually made a house call the same
day, coming to our apartment, examining my wife, giving her an
antibiotic injection as well as a prescription for two weeks worth of
antibiotics. While he was at it he gave both of us a flu shot. The
total cost: $25US, and it cost $7.50 to fill the prescription. The
difference - probably the lack of ambulance chasing lawyers and
frivolous malpractice suits combined with physicians who aren't in the
profession solely to get rich. It certainly couldn't be less waste and
inefficiency, this was Italy after all.....BG

Several Italian friends used the national health care for some very
major surgeries and other treatment and the care was done well and in a
timely manner. Of course they do pay higher taxes, but it seems to work.

Bob

In article , Andy Asberry says...

I provide my employees health insurance. I pay the first thousand,
they pay the next two thousand and then insurance kicks in. That first
thousand encourages annual physicals and immunizations. Still, it
costs $450 a head.

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Aug 2004 09:59:09 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

I provide my employees health insurance. I pay the first thousand,
they pay the next two thousand and then insurance kicks in. That first
thousand encourages annual physicals and immunizations. Still, it
costs $450 a head.

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Jim

Don't I wish it was yearly.

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 11 Aug 2004 14:47:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim

Yes sir.

On 11 Aug 2004 14:47:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim

Nearly everyone I know over the age of 40, pays from $450 to 1200 a
month for health insurance.

Figure that out for a years time, then multipy by however many years
you care to.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 11 Aug 2004 14:47:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim

Nearly everyone I know over the age of 40, pays from $450 to 1200 a
month for health insurance.

Figure that out for a years time, then multipy by however many years
you care to.

It seems to me that, at least in THIS case, the insurance
companies are selling discipline. After all...say...the average
monthly premium is $825. If every one paying that much would put
that amount into short term bonds, say, and, feed back the earnings
into the account, I suspect that unless something pretty deadly
happens, in a few years, they would have enough cash on hand that
the cost of care would not be a concern.
Of course, we can't do that because pretty much no one has
that level of discipline. And of course, I am ignoring the fact
that it seems amazingly easy these days to spend $2k or more a
month on drugs...which makes the $1000/month premium seem a bargain.
Still...that is a boatload of cash to be giving away
with a fair chance it will never be seen again.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:36:21 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 11 Aug 2004 14:47:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim

Nearly everyone I know over the age of 40, pays from $450 to 1200 a
month for health insurance.

Figure that out for a years time, then multipy by however many years
you care to.

It seems to me that, at least in THIS case, the insurance
companies are selling discipline. After all...say...the average
monthly premium is $825. If every one paying that much would put
that amount into short term bonds, say, and, feed back the earnings
into the account, I suspect that unless something pretty deadly
happens, in a few years, they would have enough cash on hand that
the cost of care would not be a concern.
Of course, we can't do that because pretty much no one has
that level of discipline. And of course, I am ignoring the fact
that it seems amazingly easy these days to spend $2k or more a
month on drugs...which makes the $1000/month premium seem a bargain.
Still...that is a boatload of cash to be giving away
with a fair chance it will never be seen again.
Regards
Dave Mundt

Short term bonds? Dave...any idea of how many people simply cannot
come up with $825 a month, period? If its a toss up between rent and
food, or $825 in insurance..most will not take the well insured while
living in a refrigerator box route.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:03:22 GMT, Andy Asberry
calmly ranted:

On 11 Aug 2004 14:47:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim

Yes sir.

Highway robbery.


-- Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Turkey and Drive --

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:36:21 GMT, (Dave Mundt) calmly
ranted:

Greetings and Salutations....

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Nearly everyone I know over the age of 40, pays from $450 to 1200 a
month for health insurance.

Figure that out for a years time, then multipy by however many years
you care to.

1.2k x 12 = $14.4k/yr x 25 = nearly 1/3 million dollars a head.
At 35 years, it's over HALF A MILLION.


It seems to me that, at least in THIS case, the insurance
companies are selling discipline.

No, they're selling a boatload of money to investors in their
firm while bending over their clients after being bent over by
the medical community who's being bent over by the legal comm.
As our friend Billary said "It takes a Village."


After all...say...the average
monthly premium is $825. If every one paying that much would put
that amount into short term bonds, say, and, feed back the earnings
into the account, I suspect that unless something pretty deadly
happens, in a few years, they would have enough cash on hand that
the cost of care would not be a concern.

Everyone SHOULD do that. Bank their money at the highest rate
and hope for the best. First investment: One herbal remedy book.
Second investment: Giving up sugar. Healthy people don't need
doctors, 'cept for accidents, so be more careful and self-treat
small problems. I clean and butterfly even deep slice wounds
instead of going to the hospital to get stitches. A little Tea
Tree oil and/or Bacitracin keeps infections away. Cost: $5/yr.

For kids, give 'em cod liver oil and watch how less frequently
they complain about a minor sore throat or try to get out of
going to school. (Disclaimer: Never married/no kids)


Of course, we can't do that because pretty much no one has
that level of discipline. And of course, I am ignoring the fact
that it seems amazingly easy these days to spend $2k or more a
month on drugs...which makes the $1000/month premium seem a bargain.

If I ever need $2k in drugs per month, take me out back and
shoot me. I need a new body!


Still...that is a boatload of cash to be giving away
with a fair chance it will never be seen again.

Too, too true! It's a scam.


-- Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Turkey and Drive --

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 06:25:00 -0700, the renowned Larry Jaques
wrote:


If I ever need $2k in drugs per month, take me out back and
shoot me. I need a new body!

I think the antirejection drugs after an organ transplant (needed for
the rest of your life) are approaching that amount.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, ...
*A* *MONTH*!!?

Yes sir.

Well I guess in retrospect that makes sense.
I'm group insured but I'm beginning to appreciate
what my employer kicks in for this. I get
reasonable coverage for me and my family,
and this costs me between one and two hundred
per month.

So my employer is making up the difference on
that.

You are on the other side of that fence,
apparently.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:26:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
*snip*
Short term bonds? Dave...any idea of how many people simply cannot
come up with $825 a month, period? If its a toss up between rent and
food, or $825 in insurance..most will not take the well insured while
living in a refrigerator box route.

Gunner

Oh yea...I am far too aware of the difficult decisions that
too many folks have to make in today's America about what to spend
their dollars on. I was KIND of assuming that this was an "ideal"
case where folks had enough cash to pony up for that sort of
outrageous monthly premium (and this IS one case where the word
"premium" is absolutely accurate!).
Perhaps the question should be "why ARE rates this high".
I suspect it is a number of factors working together, including
the fact that most insurance companies are FOR PROFIT (which by
definition means their focus is more on making money for their
investors than helping people through hard times), the increasing
and automatic use of insurance to pay for EVERYTHING (not just, as
other folks have pointed out, catastrophic costs), and the
overwhelming upwards spiral of health costs in the USA (caused
by, among other things, Health Care becoming a FOR PROFIT enterprise,
the failure of the AMA to weed out the bad doctors, the spiraling
costs of malpractice insurance because of the previous point, and
the amazing costs of developing new technology).
Part of the problem too, seems to be the decades of training
that Americans have had that the way to fix a problem is to pop
a pill. That has ended up with way too many folks being over-
medicated, and, way too many folks ready to run to the emergency
room for the smallest cut. While there are many good reasons
to go to the Emergency Room, it can go overboard...and thanks
to the fact that is is impossible for many folks to afford
insurance, the ER is their only choice..
There is no painless way to fix the problem. We could
implement a national health care system (as Canada/the UK). However,
that has its own problems. That sort of solution will guarentee
that at least a few folks will have their moms die from lack of
treatment for what COULD have been a fairly treatable problem.
The Health care and insurance industries could go back
to being pure non-profit organizations. That is REALLY not likely
to happen, because there are too many folks making too much money
off the industry now.
We could limit malpractice awards and how or when a doctor
could be sued. That would go over like a log in the punchbowl,
though, both because of the huge number of lawyers who have a
really comfortable life because of the money that they make off
of malpractice suits, and, the anger that folks have over poor
care. It might work a bit better if there were some way of
actually weeding out the doctors that were incompetent. Right
now...we still have no way to do this, or to even find out
what a doctor's record IS.
However, until a majority of Americans decide they REALLY
want to do something about it, we may as well bite the bullet and
live with it, because the situation will not change.
Kind of like one of my clients. They have a powered gate
that currently has to be pulled open and closed manually, because
it needs to be repaired and refurbished. Since management gets
there after the gate is opened, and is almost NEVER the last one
to leave, there is no pressure, interest or inclination to get
the gate fixed so we can go back to pushbutton opening and closing.
Just some rambling thoughts.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:13:46 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 11 Aug 2004 14:47:40 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Andy Asberry says...

450 each, per *year*? That's not bad.

Don't I wish it was yearly.

*A* *MONTH*!!?

Jim

Nearly everyone I know over the age of 40, pays from $450 to 1200 a
month for health insurance.

Figure that out for a years time, then multipy by however many years
you care to.

Gunner


The fly in this ointment is the person who gets sick the second month
of the program. He has only 1 month of savings.

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Old Nick says...

X-Ray tech asked me to place the wrong hand on the X-Ray table! So my
condition was chacked to the nth, but the system stuffed up. Some
years ago I had a knee reconstruction. They started to shave the wrong
knee ...

I've vowed that if I ever go in for any surgery that is not
laterally symetric I'm going to take a sharpie pen and
write, in big block letters "YES" and "NO" on the
respective sides, the night before.

Jim



Just had carpal tunnel surgery a couple months ago. They had me take a
black felt tip and write a big "Y" on the bad hand and a big "N" on the good
one. I recommend the operation highly, by the way, if anyone's got the
problem.

Garrett Fulton




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:17:29 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:26:31 GMT, Gunner
wrote:
*snip*
Short term bonds? Dave...any idea of how many people simply cannot
come up with $825 a month, period? If its a toss up between rent and
food, or $825 in insurance..most will not take the well insured while
living in a refrigerator box route.

Gunner

Oh yea...I am far too aware of the difficult decisions that
too many folks have to make in today's America about what to spend
their dollars on. I was KIND of assuming that this was an "ideal"
case where folks had enough cash to pony up for that sort of
outrageous monthly premium (and this IS one case where the word
"premium" is absolutely accurate!).
Perhaps the question should be "why ARE rates this high".
I suspect it is a number of factors working together, including
the fact that most insurance companies are FOR PROFIT (which by
definition means their focus is more on making money for their
investors than helping people through hard times), the increasing
and automatic use of insurance to pay for EVERYTHING (not just, as
other folks have pointed out, catastrophic costs), and the
overwhelming upwards spiral of health costs in the USA (caused
by, among other things, Health Care becoming a FOR PROFIT enterprise,
the failure of the AMA to weed out the bad doctors, the spiraling
costs of malpractice insurance because of the previous point, and
the amazing costs of developing new technology).
Part of the problem too, seems to be the decades of training
that Americans have had that the way to fix a problem is to pop
a pill. That has ended up with way too many folks being over-
medicated, and, way too many folks ready to run to the emergency
room for the smallest cut. While there are many good reasons
to go to the Emergency Room, it can go overboard...and thanks
to the fact that is is impossible for many folks to afford
insurance, the ER is their only choice..
There is no painless way to fix the problem. We could
implement a national health care system (as Canada/the UK). However,
that has its own problems. That sort of solution will guarentee
that at least a few folks will have their moms die from lack of
treatment for what COULD have been a fairly treatable problem.
The Health care and insurance industries could go back
to being pure non-profit organizations. That is REALLY not likely
to happen, because there are too many folks making too much money
off the industry now.
We could limit malpractice awards and how or when a doctor
could be sued. That would go over like a log in the punchbowl,
though, both because of the huge number of lawyers who have a
really comfortable life because of the money that they make off
of malpractice suits, and, the anger that folks have over poor
care. It might work a bit better if there were some way of
actually weeding out the doctors that were incompetent. Right
now...we still have no way to do this, or to even find out
what a doctor's record IS.
However, until a majority of Americans decide they REALLY
want to do something about it, we may as well bite the bullet and
live with it, because the situation will not change.
Kind of like one of my clients. They have a powered gate
that currently has to be pulled open and closed manually, because
it needs to be repaired and refurbished. Since management gets
there after the gate is opened, and is almost NEVER the last one
to leave, there is no pressure, interest or inclination to get
the gate fixed so we can go back to pushbutton opening and closing.
Just some rambling thoughts.
Regards
Dave Mundt

How about medical suits that are mandated that the person bringing a
suit found to be spurious pays all costs and some damages, and the
attorney pays 5x the costs and damages?

Added to tax free medical savings accounts and a rating system to be
posted in each doctors waiting room that's based on how many times he
has been sued for malpractice and how many times he has lost those
suits. Same with hospitals etc.

In restaurants in LA, they post rating notices at the front door
based on sanitation, and cleanliness.

And of course we do the same with lawyers based on suits filed, lost,
won etc.

Its not a cure, but more than a band aid.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:49:14 -0500, Bob Robinson
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You may have done this, but as a US citizen, you can't compare the
costs in the US with those in another country until you compare the
average wage and prices etc.

Obviously there is something seriously wrong here. For example, my wife
and I were living in Italy 3 years ago when she came down with a severe
case of bronchitis. As U.S. citizens we were not covered by the Italian

snip

antibiotics. While he was at it he gave both of us a flu shot. The
total cost: $25US, and it cost $7.50 to fill the prescription. The
difference - probably the lack of ambulance chasing lawyers and

************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:28:36 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

*snip*

How about medical suits that are mandated that the person bringing a
suit found to be spurious pays all costs and some damages, and the
attorney pays 5x the costs and damages?

Hum...well, I believe that is similar to the setup in England,
and THEIR system certainly does seem to cut down on frivolous
lawsuits.


Added to tax free medical savings accounts and a rating system to be
posted in each doctors waiting room that's based on how many times he
has been sued for malpractice and how many times he has lost those
suits. Same with hospitals etc.

In restaurants in LA, they post rating notices at the front door
based on sanitation, and cleanliness.

And of course we do the same with lawyers based on suits filed, lost,
won etc.

That does sound like a pretty good option. Kind of like the
energy ratings on refrigerators and such - just to let us know where
THIS particular unit lies on the range of doctors in his field.
I would hope that there would be a little common sense in
evaluating them too. After all, I suspect that a doctor that is in
a field where they are on the cutting edge of keeping folks alive
might be a BIT more at risk for a lawsuit when someone dies than
the average GP (assuming that such an animal still exists, of course
*smile*). Usually, when someone dies, the family has a lot of anger,
and grief. These days, that tends to be focused outwards and makes
the loss someone else's fault...which can lead to a lawsuit.
I suspect, too, that folks like cosmetic surgeons, who do
a lot of work that is "subjective" might well have a bunch of
suits against them because the results did not live up to the
expectations of the patient.

Its not a cure, but more than a band aid.

Yea...but, the power groups don't even want a bandaid.
After all, the AMA has had the INFORMATION needed to weed out
the incompetent doctors for decades (I can remember this being
debated in the 70s, if not earlier) yet, they have done nothing
about it.
Regards
Dave Mundt

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:50:10 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:
Yea...but, the power groups don't even want a bandaid.
After all, the AMA has had the INFORMATION needed to weed out
the incompetent doctors for decades (I can remember this being
debated in the 70s, if not earlier) yet, they have done nothing
about it.

Remember, 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of
their class.

Gary

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:28:36 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted:

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:17:29 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

Perhaps the question should be "why ARE rates this high".

Amen! Not enough people question anything.


I suspect it is a number of factors working together, including
the fact that most insurance companies are FOR PROFIT (which by
definition means their focus is more on making money for their
investors than helping people through hard times), the increasing
and automatic use of insurance to pay for EVERYTHING (not just, as
other folks have pointed out, catastrophic costs), and the
overwhelming upwards spiral of health costs in the USA (caused
by, among other things, Health Care becoming a FOR PROFIT enterprise,
the failure of the AMA to weed out the bad doctors, the spiraling
costs of malpractice insurance because of the previous point, and
the amazing costs of developing new technology).

There are endless years adding costs of proving a drug to the
FDA who shrugs and hints "Who cares if more people die waiting
for no drug than would die if given a bad drug?"


The Health care and insurance industries could go back
to being pure non-profit organizations. That is REALLY not likely
to happen, because there are too many folks making too much money
off the industry now.

That'd be nice. Too bad the profiteers don't realize that their
money is blood money and made entirely off people's suffering.


We could limit malpractice awards and how or when a doctor
could be sued. That would go over like a log in the punchbowl,
though, both because of the huge number of lawyers who have a
really comfortable life because of the money that they make off
of malpractice suits, and, the anger that folks have over poor
care. It might work a bit better if there were some way of
actually weeding out the doctors that were incompetent. Right
now...we still have no way to do this, or to even find out
what a doctor's record IS.

Yes, limiting awards is a very good idea. And the AMA is like a
union which strangles all attacks on its citizens and scares the
court into complete and absolute submission to its whims. The
AMA is all-powerful and we know what power does to men.


However, until a majority of Americans decide they REALLY
want to do something about it, we may as well bite the bullet and
live with it, because the situation will not change.

It's the same with our congresscritters. We won't get change until
we replace all the corrupt *******s.


How about medical suits that are mandated that the person bringing a
suit found to be spurious pays all costs and some damages, and the
attorney pays 5x the costs and damages?

Let's not forget to ding the judge for damages for allowing the
stupid thing into his court. To fix the legal system, they must
be held accountable, too, not just the speaking weasels (attys).
But let's limit the damages to something real. They've gotten a
bit frivolous, too, before the judge remittiturs them in the
background which the media chooses not to follow.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/de...remittitur.htm


Added to tax free medical savings accounts and a rating system to be
posted in each doctors waiting room that's based on how many times he
has been sued for malpractice and how many times he has lost those
suits. Same with hospitals etc.

In restaurants in LA, they post rating notices at the front door
based on sanitation, and cleanliness.

But let's inspect medical facilities a bit more often, please.
(I've seen some "A"-signed restaurants I wouldn't eat in, much
preferring any old roadside fish taco stand in downtown Ensenada.)


And of course we do the same with lawyers based on suits filed, lost,
won etc.

For judges, count the frivolous suits allowed/damages paid (by him).


Its not a cure, but more than a band aid.

Every little bit helps.


------------------------------
Gator: The other white meat!
------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:17:24 -0400, Gary Coffman
calmly ranted:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:50:10 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:
Yea...but, the power groups don't even want a bandaid.
After all, the AMA has had the INFORMATION needed to weed out
the incompetent doctors for decades (I can remember this being
debated in the 70s, if not earlier) yet, they have done nothing
about it.

Remember, 50% of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of
their class.

Q: What do you call a person who left medical school with "D-" grades?

A: Doctor!


------------------------------
Gator: The other white meat!
------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

In article , Gunner says...

How about medical suits that are mandated that the person bringing a
suit found to be spurious pays all costs and some damages, and the
attorney pays 5x the costs and damages?

This sounds fine to me, as long as when the plaintiff wins,
the doctor has to personally pay 5X the award to the plaintiff.
No insurance. He goes out of business.

Added to tax free medical savings accounts and a rating system to be
posted in each doctors waiting room that's based on how many times he
has been sued for malpractice and how many times he has lost those
suits. Same with hospitals etc.

I think in NY you can access this information online now.
Oh ho, how the doctors' organizations screamed and hollered....
Some blubbering, too.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Old Nick wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:49:14 -0500, Bob Robinson
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

You may have done this, but as a US citizen, you can't compare the
costs in the US with those in another country until you compare the
average wage and prices etc.


Obviously there is something seriously wrong here. For example, my wife
and I were living in Italy 3 years ago when she came down with a severe
case of bronchitis. As U.S. citizens we were not covered by the Italian


snip


antibiotics. While he was at it he gave both of us a flu shot. The
total cost: $25US, and it cost $7.50 to fill the prescription. The
difference - probably the lack of ambulance chasing lawyers and


************************************************** ***
It's not the milk and honey we hate. It's having it
rammed down our throats.

Nick,

You are right, but the cost of living there is very close to the U.S.
and the average wage there is approximately 25% lower than the U.S. (33%
lower than Oz). Even adjusted for those factors it's no contest, and
you can't get a doctor to make a house call under any circumstances
here. I really can't address your situation as I have no knowledge of
the Aussie health care or legal systems, but I have heard you don't get
gouged for the prescriptions like we do.

Bob

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:26:31 GMT on
rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:


Short term bonds? Dave...any idea of how many people simply cannot
come up with $825 a month, period? If its a toss up between rent and
food, or $825 in insurance.

Fark, $825 is more than I pay in Rent, and I live in King Co
Washington, recently declared by Forbes magazine to be overpriced central
for the Western US.

.most will not take the well insured while living in a refrigerator
box route.

Not an option. Insurance is a gamble (_Life_ is a gamble!), so t\you
pays your money and you takes your chances. Or not.
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

.most will not take the well insured while living in a refrigerator
box route.

Not an option. Insurance is a gamble (_Life_ is a gamble!), so t\you
pays your money and you takes your chances. Or not.

But the point Gunner and I were making was, the insurance companies
are making it harder and harder to avoid that gamble.

Sure you can say, 'can't live without it.' But at some point
as the cost escallates, you have to make hard choices. And
many are choosing to simply opt out of the system. And many
of those are the demographic that the insurance companies
should be actively courting, to keep them *in* the system
paying premiums.

Lots of folks are taking their ball and going home.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:45:23 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:26:31 GMT on
rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:


Short term bonds? Dave...any idea of how many people simply cannot
come up with $825 a month, period? If its a toss up between rent and
food, or $825 in insurance.

Fark, $825 is more than I pay in Rent, and I live in King Co
Washington, recently declared by Forbes magazine to be overpriced central
for the Western US.

In southern California, $850 month will not get you a single bedroom
apartment. in an area heavily populated by minority members whos
parents were patriotic..

http://www.ktvu.com/news/3577890/detail.html

$850 is two months mortage payments for me but I live in a dying town
in the middle of **** all nowhere.

.most will not take the well insured while living in a refrigerator
box route.

Not an option. Insurance is a gamble (_Life_ is a gamble!), so t\you
pays your money and you takes your chances. Or not.

Indeed. And I cant aford to gamble either.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what jim rozen
foisted 16 Aug 2004 17:19:47 -0700 on
rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:
In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

.most will not take the well insured while living in a refrigerator
box route.

Not an option. Insurance is a gamble (_Life_ is a gamble!), so t\you
pays your money and you takes your chances. Or not.

But the point Gunner and I were making was, the insurance companies
are making it harder and harder to avoid that gamble.

The insurance companies are merely responding to the costs they have to
reimburse. Those costs can be traced to two major developments in the last
several decades: increased medical technology, and trial lawyers.
The Increase in medical technology are all the neat drugs, therapies,
and gadgets which make diagnosing and treating more aliments possible.
We're diagnosing aliments which ten years ago we could neither diagnose or
treat. We're also treating conditions which ten years ago were "terminal"
Take a look at what the Trauma Centers are doing in lifesaving. People who
would have died are now surviving. Of course these treatments cost money,
but "As long as you have your health..."
Which leads us to the other factor: trial lawyers suing for
"malpractice", and the juries which agree with them. Again, we've gotten a
notion that medicine is infallible, effective and never fails. When people
die, or do not make a 100% recovery, there is a lawyer there to counsel a
law suit for "damages". [It is an old saying: "Two lawyers can make a
living in a town to small to support one."] Not a problem in theory, but
we don't live in Theory. And when juries decide that a doctor did bad, and
stick him with a large penalty (knowing that the insurance company will be
paying it anyway), what is the Insurance Company going to do to handle the
increased cost of doing business? Quit?
So, these two factors cross in the hospital, as the physician orders
more tests to document they didn't ignore anything which a lawyer might use
as evidence of "malpractice". And some of the charges are increased to
cover the overhead, including their own malpractice premium.

Oh yeah, and then there is the "free medical" benefits, where all
visits to the hospital are covered. More cost to The Plan.

Sure you can say, 'can't live without it.' But at some point
as the cost escallates, you have to make hard choices. And
many are choosing to simply opt out of the system. And many
of those are the demographic that the insurance companies
should be actively courting, to keep them *in* the system
paying premiums.

Happened here in Washington state. The State came up with a plan to
cover all residents, open enrollment and no existing condition
restrictions. naturally enough, a lot of people delayed getting insurance
until they were going to need it. Oh yeah, did I mention the insurance
companies decided to write no more medical policies in this state?


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Gunner
foisted Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:42:29 GMT on
rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:45:23 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
Short term bonds? Dave...any idea of how many people simply cannot
come up with $825 a month, period? If its a toss up between rent and
food, or $825 in insurance.

Fark, $825 is more than I pay in Rent, and I live in King Co
Washington, recently declared by Forbes magazine to be overpriced central
for the Western US.

In southern California, $850 month will not get you a single bedroom
apartment. in an area heavily populated by minority members whos
parents were patriotic..

$850 is two months mortage payments for me but I live in a dying town
in the middle of **** all nowhere.

I've a friend who has a nice two bedroom place, for $350. But it is a
four to five hour drive from Seattle. "Hell of a commute.." (I have read
of an executive of Amazon who commutes, by air, from Corvallis, but he
flies himself.)
I'm not too concerned with the number ($850, 650, 350, 135) so much as
I'm concerned with the ratio. Spending half my income on rent/mortgage is
not a good situation. Doesn't matter if you're living in a one room shack,
or 10,000 square feet of McMansion - it is not a good situation.

.most will not take the well insured while living in a refrigerator
box route.
Not an option. Insurance is a gamble (_Life_ is a gamble!), so t\you
pays your money and you takes your chances. Or not.
Indeed. And I cant aford to gamble either.

I can't afford it, but I do.

I can't afford the high cost of living, but somehow I still keep doing
it.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

The insurance companies are merely responding to the costs they have to
reimburse. Those costs can be traced to two major developments in the last
several decades: increased medical technology, and trial lawyers.

Medical technology, yes. Med Mal trials? Sorry, those have
been around since forever. There hasn't been any change in that
department.

You have left out what IMO is the single most important driving
force behind cost increases: the average age of US citizens
is going UP. I think that alone would give you the 2 or 3
times increase that we've experienced.

Happened here in Washington state. The State came up with a plan to
cover all residents, open enrollment and no existing condition
restrictions. naturally enough, a lot of people delayed getting insurance
until they were going to need it. Oh yeah, did I mention the insurance
companies decided to write no more medical policies in this state?

OK, let's force the issue and make that effect uniform across the
country. No more medical policies. Anywhere.

The money that's being spent on health care will still be there.
It hasn't 'gone away' just because the insurance companies took
their ball and when home.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:58:52 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

So, these two factors cross in the hospital, as the physician orders
more tests to document they didn't ignore anything which a lawyer might use
as evidence of "malpractice". And some of the charges are increased to
cover the overhead, including their own malpractice premium.

One other thing you failed to mention, as most people are not aware of
it..the insurance companies took a real beating during the implosion
of the DotCom bubble as their monies were invested and they also took
some serious losess in the various wildfires etc etc..so they are
looking to recoup their losses. But then on the other hand..they
still manage to report record

http://www.caaa.org/research/PR02-09.asp
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/insu.../fs000154.php3

Some on their losses
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlou...3/daily28.html

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann

In article , Gunner says...

One other thing you failed to mention, as most people are not aware of
it..the insurance companies took a real beating during the implosion
of the DotCom bubble as their monies were invested ....

WHoa hold on there.

"Invested???"

You mean they're taking my premiums and *not* paying for
folks to get treated by doctors - that they're simply
playing the shell game like the rest of the megacorps?

In that case, seeing as they've made unwise investments,
they should simply do what the rest of the companies who
screw up do. Go out of business.

What the heck, is this heath care or the horse races?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Old Nick wrote in message . ..

This shows a considerable lack of thought about the fact that
_everybody gets old and or sick one day.

And there's part of the problem. We all seem to think that the
medical system has all the answers and that we won't ever have to die.
I read somewhere that 80% of a person's lifetime medical expenses are
incurred in the last six months of life. We get old, get really
seriously ill, and because we have the pharmaceuticals and the fancy
machinery to keep us alive, the system is quite happy to use them.
More and more machines are being developed, and more and more drugs,
and the makers can charge whatever they want as long as they have
exclusive patent rights. If we want to stay alive we have to pay it.
Add to that the problems brought on by our sedentary, overfed
lifestyles and badly imbalanced diets. Most kids are now overweight to
some degree, caused by sitting at a computer or TV and sucking up soft
drinks and chips. A two-litre bottle of Coke has 46 teaspoons of sugar
in it, and a slushie has way more. Per capita sugar consumption in the
US has risen from something like 25 pounds per year 100 years ago to
well over 300 pounds now. Sugar gets converted to fat almost instantly
when taken in such volumes, and fatigues the pancreas. Is it any
wonder that obesity, diabetes and heart disease are costing us?
Now, here in Canada, our taxes are rising because of the
nationalized health care plan. We supposedly have it good, but it can
take several years to get a hip replacement, maybe a year or more for
a simple MRI. Goverments simply don't run things any more efficiently
than the private sector, and in most cases not nearly as well. It's
fine to have cheap insurance, but if the services aren't available,
where's the benefit?
Our Canadian birthrate is way down, with most population growth
coming from immigration. How many of the kids or immigrants are going
to put up with higher and higher taxes just to keep us old fogies
alive? I can see them saying, "You gave us that huge national debt.
We're going to be paying that off for the next 200 years. You had your
fun. You're 75 years old and have cancer. It was nice knowing you.
Roll up your left sleeve, please. This will only take a minute."

Dan

jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gunner says...


One other thing you failed to mention, as most people are not aware of
it..the insurance companies took a real beating during the implosion
of the DotCom bubble as their monies were invested ....


WHoa hold on there.

"Invested???"

You mean they're taking my premiums and *not* paying for
folks to get treated by doctors - that they're simply
playing the shell game like the rest of the megacorps?

In that case, seeing as they've made unwise investments,
they should simply do what the rest of the companies who
screw up do. Go out of business.

What the heck, is this heath care or the horse races?

Now are we talking about health insurance or car insurance
or fire insurance?

I doubt that much of your health or car insurance premium
ever got invested long-term.

As to fire/flood/hurricane/earthquake insurance, the
companies could go 2,3 or more years without a huge
claim. It would only make sense to invest the accumulated
premiums. The trick would be to invest it in a less risky
endeaver than what they are insuring (:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:23:30 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted:

Some on their losses
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlou...3/daily28.html

So, how much of that was actually 9/11-related costs?

--============================================--
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what jim rozen
foisted 17 Aug 2004 14:47:51 -0700 on
rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:
In article , Gunner says...

One other thing you failed to mention, as most people are not aware of
it..the insurance companies took a real beating during the implosion
of the DotCom bubble as their monies were invested ....

WHoa hold on there.

"Invested???"

Yep, invested. There's this small detail that premiums don't cover all
the disbursements, and it is prudent to do something with the cash which
will be fiduciarily rewarding. (Make money). Letting large amounts of
cash sit in a strong box is "safe" but not fiscally responsible.

You mean they're taking my premiums and *not* paying for
folks to get treated by doctors - that they're simply
playing the shell game like the rest of the megacorps?

Nope. they are paying the bills, and with the left over cash, trying
to make a little money on the side. You'd appreciate if they make a
"killing" in the market, they don't have to raise rates "as much". (Of
course, when they lose money, somebody has to make it up.)

In that case, seeing as they've made unwise investments,
they should simply do what the rest of the companies who
screw up do. Go out of business.

And take your coverage with them?

What the heck, is this heath care or the horse races?

It is insurance, which is neither health care or a horse race.

But they are betting you won't need the money anytime soon. (Dem ol'
actuary tables, ya know.)


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

In article , pyotr filipivich
says...

You mean they're taking my premiums and *not* paying for
folks to get treated by doctors - that they're simply
playing the shell game like the rest of the megacorps?

Nope. they are paying the bills, and with the left over cash, trying
to make a little money on the side. You'd appreciate if they make a
"killing" in the market, they don't have to raise rates "as much". (Of
course, when they lose money, somebody has to make it up.)

Right, they're *gambling* with the premium dollars. If they
make money, they keep it. If they lose money, they raise the
rates. It's pretty obvious that the insurance regulators are
squarely in bed with the companies they regulate if this sort
of crap is the norm.

And what kind of 'left over cash' do health insurance companies
have? No *wonder* there's a healthcare 'crisis' in the US, the
guys in charge are taking the money and playing the ponies with
it!

Silly me, I thought the paradigm was: customers pay premiums
to the insurance company for coverage. The company takes all
the money and puts it in an account. They pay for the doctor
and hospital bills out of that account. For their trouble
they get to keep a small percentage to pay for employees and
to pay dividends on their stock.

Where in all this does it say, "take all the premiums and
invest them in the market?" I can sure see that my parents
raised a fool, I'm absolutely in the wrong line of work
here.

Jim (how do I start and insurance company anyway?)


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:04:36 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:23:30 GMT, Gunner
calmly ranted:

Some on their losses
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlou...3/daily28.html

So, how much of that was actually 9/11-related costs?

Depends on what :

"as insurers took a $15.5 billion capital loss on the sale of invested
assets."

means.

Gunner

"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann