[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by MBsGirl

I think at least 75% of what's wrong in the health care industry in the US is lack of tort reform and lawsuit limits. Cut back on the fabulous cash prizes awarded..make people think long and hard about taking responsibility for their own health and actions...make it so staff can actually care for patients, not spend time charting for lawsuit avoidance..and it might actually improve the system. As long as the country is run by lawyers, I doubt things will ever improve. I can't see that a health care plan developed by lawyers is going to be a simple, uncomplicated process, practical, or affordable.

Tort reform issues have a miniscule effect on health care costs see:
No evidence of significant effects on health care costs
The cost of medical malpractice claims and litigation is so small a part of national health care expenditures as to be insignificant—even as calculated by Towers Perrin, which indicates its tort cost estimates (Chimerine and Eisenbrey 2005). According to Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs, broadly defined to include the costs of insurance industry overhead (including profits) and claims handling, as well as all claims paid without litigation, totaled $28.7 billion in 2004, only 1.5% of the nation’s $1.9 trillion bill for health expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that “even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 to 0.5 percent” (CBO 2004, 6). To put the insignificance of this into context, health care inflation in 2004 would have been 7.8% instead of 8.2%.

If, as Towers Perrin has claimed, damages awarded to plaintiffs are 46% of total tort costs (Tillinghast-Towers Perrin 2003, 17), and non-economic damages are about half of all damages awarded to plaintiffs, then fully eliminating noneconomic damages in medical malpractice (and the attorney fees associated with them) would have a negligible effect on U.S. health expenditures, reducing them by 0.5% or less.5 It follows logically that legislative changes like those recently debated in Congress that would cap such damages at $250,000 would have an even smaller effect.
at: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp174

[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by CHATSDALE

there are a lot of latter day hippies that haven't changed their mind in 40 years..liberal or conservative we need to keep open minds and listen to what each one is saying -

please don't mention gore when others might be eating

WWW.DraftGore.com

[JenniferH]

Major problems with health care:

-Lack of affordable care for those who don't have insurance. This includes people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid/CHIPS, or who don't make enough to shell out for premiums. If you don't have some form of insurance, some Dr's won't even see you.

This problem is directly related to 1. Tort reform (Docs have to charge too much for services because their insurance is outrageous and they have massive debt from medical school) 2. Big Pharm lobby (I won't get into a debate about this, but it's a HUGE problem that the people who make the drugs have so much influence over our government regulatory body. This stands for ANY corporate interest lobby.)

-Lack of QUALITY care for those who do have Medicaid/CHIPS. If you've ever faced discrimination because of your Medicaid/CHIPS status, you know what I'm talking about. It happens, oh yes it does.

-Lack of options for women as pertains to childbirth, birth control, and prenatal care. I won't get into a debate about this either. OB's are out of control on a massive scale. The C-section rate has dramatically increased, yet infant and maternal death rates have not dramatically decreased over the last CENTURY. If invasive procedures are so necessary, shouldn't there be an inverse proportion in the C-section rate and infant/maternal death rates (invasive procedures go up, death rates go down)? But that's not the case. I know how a lot of you feel about midwifery, but the numbers don't lie. Fewer women die in home births than in hospital births. A lot of the medications used to jump start labor are NOT FDA approved for that purpose.

Lack of adequate prenatal care for impoverished women. Home health maternal care, baby! It's ok if you have Medicaid, but if you don't have a ride to the Dr. it doesn't do a lot of good. If you live in a rural area and don't have public trans or a ride, even worse.

Off the box, for now.

[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by JenniferH

Major problems with health care:

-Lack of affordable care for those who don't have insurance. This includes people who make too much to qualify for Medicaid/CHIPS, or who don't make enough to shell out for premiums. If you don't have some form of insurance, some Dr's won't even see you.

This problem is directly related to 1. Tort reform (Docs have to charge too much for services because their insurance is outrageous and they have massive debt from medical school) 2. Big Pharm lobby (I won't get into a debate about this, but it's a HUGE problem that the people who make the drugs have so much influence over our government regulatory body. This stands for ANY corporate interest lobby.)

-Lack of QUALITY care for those who do have Medicaid/CHIPS. If you've ever faced discrimination because of your Medicaid/CHIPS status, you know what I'm talking about. It happens, oh yes it does.

-Lack of options for women as pertains to childbirth, birth control, and prenatal care. I won't get into a debate about this either. OB's are out of control on a massive scale. The C-section rate has dramatically increased, yet infant and maternal death rates have not dramatically decreased over the last CENTURY. If invasive procedures are so necessary, shouldn't there be an inverse proportion in the C-section rate and infant/maternal death rates (invasive procedures go up, death rates go down)? But that's not the case. I know how a lot of you feel about midwifery, but the numbers don't lie. Fewer women die in home births than in hospital births. A lot of the medications used to jump start labor are NOT FDA approved for that purpose.

Lack of adequate prenatal care for impoverished women. Home health maternal care, baby! It's ok if you have Medicaid, but if you don't have a ride to the Dr. it doesn't do a lot of good. If you live in a rural area and don't have public trans or a ride, even worse.

Off the box, for now.

More Reasons for UHC

[TeleRNer]

YOU MUST BE SILLARY TO VOTE FOR HILLARY!

I would like to have a woman be our Pres however, not madam clinton...sorry, no how! She tolerated her hubby having all of this goo goo gaa gaa occurring in the W.H. and still remains loyal to the lying jerk. In principle, no way! Even if she is a woman.

Now, I allow me to sound very hypocritical. Guillani looks very promising in my eyes. He has the wit, good sense of humor in the face of utter ruin 9/11 and has a more moderate approach regarding right to life and gay marriage. I don't like that he divorced thrice and his son hates him now or that he remarried a trophy wife. I just believe his likability will win over the most people...period.

I do like Sen.Dodd tremendously, however his spark is milktoast and he gives the experiecial line during debate way too often, which deters from his precious message. Realistically, of all the candidates Guillani ranks as my over all favorite.

[sharona97]

Originally Posted by TeleRNer

YOU MUST BE SILLARY TO VOTE FOR HILLARY!

I would like to have a woman be our Pres however, not madam clinton...sorry, no how! She tolerated her hubby having all of this goo goo gaa gaa occurring in the W.H. and still remains loyal to the lying jerk. In principle, no way! Even if she is a woman.

Now, I allow me to sound very hypocritical. Guillani looks very promising in my eyes. He has the wit, good sense of humor in the face of utter ruin 9/11 and has a more moderate approach regarding right to life and gay marriage. I don't like that he divorced thrice and his son hates him now or that he remarried a trophy wife. I just believe his likability will win over the most people...period.

I do like Sen.Dodd tremendously, however his spark is milktoast and he gives the experiecial line during debate way too often, which deters from his precious message. Realistically, of all the candidates Guillani ranks as my over all favorite.

True some men are womanizers, not only Bill. And Hillary should be commended for sticking by her husband as he sought help for his admitted problem.

More importantly, doesn't it all come down to who has the best business head with focus towards the betterment of the American people? In case you forgot, when Bill left office our budget was balanced with a surplus. We had a solvent SS program till the year 2045. We had respect from our aliied friends and other countries. And we were not involved in a war.

Who is he to throw the first stone? Anybody completely perfect is not running for this election. With that said, experience from previous history and intellect in business and compassion puts my thoughts on who to vote for. Name calling a candidate only proves to me uneducated, uninformed partial views.

[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by TeleRNer

YOU MUST BE SILLARY TO VOTE FOR HILLARY!

I would like to have a woman be our Pres however, not madam clinton...sorry, no how! She tolerated her hubby having all of this goo goo gaa gaa occurring in the W.H. and still remains loyal to the lying jerk. In principle, no way! Even if she is a woman.

Now, I allow me to sound very hypocritical. Guillani looks very promising in my eyes. He has the wit, good sense of humor in the face of utter ruin 9/11 and has a more moderate approach regarding right to life and gay marriage. I don't like that he divorced thrice and his son hates him now or that he remarried a trophy wife. I just believe his likability will win over the most people...period.

I do like Sen.Dodd tremendously, however his spark is milktoast and he gives the experiecial line during debate way too often, which deters from his precious message. Realistically, of all the candidates Guillani ranks as my over all favorite.

I wouldnt even buy a used car from Giulliani, he really does look like a used car salesman

[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by sharona97

True some men are womanizers, not only Bill. And Hillary should be commended for sticking by her husband as he sought help for his admitted problem.

More importantly, doesn't it all come down to who has the best business head with focus towards the betterment of the American people? In case you forgot, when Bill left office our budget was balanced with a surplus. We had a solvent SS program till the year 2045. We had respect from our aliied friends and other countries. And we were not involved in a war.

Who is he to throw the first stone? Anybody completely perfect is not running for this election. With that said, experience from previous history and intellect in business and compassion puts my thoughts on who to vote for. Name calling a candidate only proves to me uneducated, uninformed partial views.

Thank God there are no more Bushies, at least that count.

[LabMonster]

The United States weren't founded on the pretense that 2 parties should control the political future of the country. With that in mind, read what Dr. Ron Paul's platform on healthcare encompasses:
"Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats." Changes to HC include:
Making all medical expenses tax deductible.

• Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
• Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
• Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
• Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

Universal Healthcare sounds enticing - but the bottom line is "Who will pay for it all?"

In part, I think the population at large needs to take control of their own healthcare, by healthcare I mean WELL-care, or health maintenance. Stop eating junk, start exercising, stop smoking etc, etc. How many patients do you see with chronic illnesses that could have been prevented? This country has turned a blind eye to disease we caused ourselves due to lifestyle choices.

I'm not saying all diseases are caused by choice - but the vast majority of our healthcare dollars are spent in care of chronic illness. Lung Cancer is still the #1 cancer killer - on and on.

We need a candidate who recognizes market forces and who sees that bigger government is NOT the way solve the HC crisis. The government can't even keep track of what THEY are doing, why would we want them to impinge more on the care of our patients?

[pickledpepperRN]

One way or another WE pay for our healthcare.
I think non of us know the future. We are on accident or illness away from needing months in the ICU.

So WE need to figure out the best way for all of US to be responsible and prudent in ensuring WE get the care we need.

To me doing it together makes sense. When we are young and healthy we pay into health insurance. The old and sick get what they need.
If we become sick or injured we get what we need.

No matter the system the resources are the same. We are a rich country.
I don't think that makes it OK for a very few to become milti millionairres from the work of nurses, doctors, and other caregivers. And deny care to the unfortunate people with a pre existing condition.

It won't be simple but at least those profiting will no longer be the unproductive ones who don't provide any healthcare.