From: Bill Graham on

"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b4227c2-2e2b-4453-9488-502d65313245(a)13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 13, 11:07 pm, John A. <j...(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
> Why am I reminded of a Jack Benny routine?

Dunno.

Jack Benny was funny.

Oddly enough, he was my favorite comedian.

From: D. Peter Maus on
On 9/14/09 02:55 , Bill Graham wrote:
>
>

precisely the reasons you state.
>>
>> My point was that 'chipping' brings with it the worst kind of
>> potential for abuse.
>
> Perhaps so. Fingerprint reading, Eye markings. even instant DNA
> analysis, (which I believe is in the near future). I don't really care
> how they do it. My point is that if they can't control our borders, then
> they will have to identify us individually....


This is not a matter to be taken lightly. Constitutionally, the
government is precluded from gathering the kind of information that
would permit this. The founders, you're aware, had just extricated
themselves from a government of the worst kinds of human abuse. In
their wisdom, they established a set of rules which would prevent
the government from gathering the kind of power which would permit
the widespread infringement of individual rights. Hence the
'negative rights' Obiteme is so fond of speaking about. The
Constitution specifically limits the power of government to infringe
on the rights of the People. Your 'shall not be infringed' argument
re: The Second Amendment is well made, here.

In this light, limiting the power of the government to infringe
on the people also means limiting the power of the government to
take from the people, redistribute to the people, or oversee the
activities provided for the people. In other words, the entire
spectrum of 'social programs' so carefully crafted to spend the
money of the people.

Surrendering the power to gather the kind of information needed
to personally identify each person within its borders would be a
cost far too dear in individual liberties. There are better ways
than letting government handle any of this.

The problem is that once government had gotten involved,
especially with protectionist legislation in the health care
industry, the laws of unintended consequences created obstacles for
the free market solution to many of these problems. They also
created opportunities for corruption, and enormous profiteering, on
the part of insurance, and medical providers. Remove these
protections for insurance and medical providers and they suddenly
have to compete to survive. In a stroke, the providers would have to
weed out the illegals in order to survive.

They can be dramatically more efficient than government.

Simply opening insurance policies to portability would render
much of the profiteering extinct. Permitting purchase of insurance
across state lines would continue these benefits. Precluding the
standard practice of sending one bill to the patient while sending a
second and different bill to the insurance companies would eliminate
a great deal of the fraud and corruption in the system.

Bear in mind that the government is notoriously ineffective at
protecting personal private information. This is the same entity
that put 20 million social security numbers on the internet.

If you like the Post Office, you'll LOVE the government being
personally able to identify you, and your movements, at will.








From: Andrew Cook on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:

> If price fixing is prevented, and free competition is forced... ...But I
> don't see how free competition in this industry can ever be worse than a
> government sponsored program

I'm having difficulty working out how free competion works in health
care.

Say I've just been shot / had a heart attack / have some other
immediately life threatening illness. How does 'free competion in
healthcare' help me? I don't have time to shop around between multiple
providers - my options are get in the first ambulance and go to the
nearest hospital, or die.

Them when I can't afford the co-pay, I either don't have it, or con the
hospital I can afford it then go bankrupt later - competition doesn't
help me there either.




From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:00:30 +0100, nospam(a)nospam.demon.co.uk (Andrew
Cook) wrote:

>Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> If price fixing is prevented, and free competition is forced... ...But I
>> don't see how free competition in this industry can ever be worse than a
>> government sponsored program
>
>I'm having difficulty working out how free competion works in health
>care.
>
>Say I've just been shot / had a heart attack / have some other
>immediately life threatening illness. How does 'free competion in
>healthcare' help me? I don't have time to shop around between multiple
>providers - my options are get in the first ambulance and go to the
>nearest hospital, or die.

>>Them when I can't afford the co-pay, I either don't have it, or con the
>hospital I can afford it then go bankrupt later - competition doesn't
>help me there either.
>
It has to do with the insurance side of health care. Should health
care insurance providers be heavily regulated, or should they be
allowed to compete in a free market?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: C J Campbell on
On 2009-09-13 12:24:05 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> said:

>
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, juries have very good "bullshit detectors" by and large, and
>>> it's very rare for a frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suit to
>>> succeed. Any little guy vs big guy sympathies are balanced by the
>>> pleasure to be had in sending a con packing. Seriously, the whole idea
>>> that's been going around of capping awards in these cases serves no
>>> one near as well as the *real* incompetent and/or reckless medical
>>> professionals who will save money but who should be out of the
>>> business entirely. Hey, if folks are hell-bent on capping rightfully
>>> won awards, I guess they will, but let's have some professional
>>> repercussions to weed out the real bad doctors, nurses, etc. and keep
>>> them out.
>>
>> The trouble is that most cases never go to trial. The insurance companies
>> nearly always settle for something, because the cost of defending is
>> greater than the cost of paying something on even the most frivolous
>> claim. That raises insurance rates for everyone, plus it encourages
>> medical professionals to practice exceedingly defensive medicine.
>
> Actually, people who have looked at medical malpractice cases find that
> frivolous claims are few and far between and almost never get paid (and, as
> above, the ones that make it to trial do badly).
>
> Inversely, the number of cases where people are hurt by medical malpractice
> and don't get compensated is large. Many don't even turn into claims, it
> would have been difficult to sue), and many valid claims get discarded,
> rejected, or lose in court. The bottom line is that the reason there is so
> much paid out to patients from malpractice insurance is that there's so much
> malpractice.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/opinion/12baker.html?_r=1
>
> http://www.insurance-reform.org/issues/MedMalMedmalErrorsFactSheet2009F.html
>
> And the amount of money changing hands in malpractice cases is insignificant
> and falling.
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/158494.php
>
> Thus there are three problems in medical malpractice system: (1) (as above)
> too few people are being compensated, (2) the malpractice insurance
> companies aren't lowering their premiums even though the number of cases and
> awards has been falling (and thus are ripping off the doctors*, but not by
> an amount that has any significance at the policy level), and (3) the
> doctors don't want there to be any malpractice system at all, i.e. don't
> want to take responsibility for their mistakes.
>
> *: http://www.insurance-reform.org/pr/070328.html

Generally the only people who believe these claims are the trial
lawyers lobby and those who are beholden to it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor