<p>My problem with Hillary is simple: She is in bed with the American Trial Lawyers Association. When she tried to promulgate her “health care reform,” she suggest everything EXCEPT malpractice reform. It is well known among folks that know her that she is very cozy with the trial lawyers. Frankly, that alone would make me vote against her. We can’t control health care costs nor stop the bleeding of jobs to other countries, in my opinion, until we get reform our litigation system. IN fact, it would be easy to do. All we need to do is to adopt the British system, which makes the loser pay the winners legal fees.</p>
<p>Ok mini, in your last post you put two words together that should never be in the same sentence effeciant and government. Could you please name me some government programs that are extremely effecient. I think you will find that there are none. Has government ever came in and made things better or worse. Right now, the current healthcare situation has resulted from a bad government, and now you want to give them even more influence. It boggles my mind. What I think you don’t understand is the financial strain these stupid programs cause on our country. To make my point a little more clear I want you to look at some numbers for the proposed budget of 2007</p>
<p>$699.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt </p>
<p>Let us quickly run through the list. Our defense budget is an absolute necessity, however the current united states global empire has made it at least twice of what it should be right now. Let’s go on to social security. Oh wait, there will be no social security and it is forcast to go bankrupt in some odd 20 years. Many financial planners laugh at people who think they can count social security into future retirement programs. Let’s move onto the next items: Medicare, unemployment and welfare, and Medicaid and other health related items. Combined they spend nearly a trillion dollars, which is approximatly 40 % of the budget. My plan for these three is to eliminate them from the government immidiatly and let the people themselves provide for the poor, sick, elderly, etc… You might say though, that it can be fixed to be made much more effeciant through the likes of hillary. To answer that, I might ask you to look at the history of any government or politician. Do any of these politicians actually have any type of a record that would suggest cutting programs from the government. Ok, on to interest on debt. Because of the other programs mentioned above, the united states is running a defecit every year and says that they MUST borrow. The accumulation of these deffecits has resulted in a total debt of 9 trillion dollars, which is approximatly 30,000 dollars for every person in the united states. </p>
<p>I am pleading with you, recognized that financial responsibility should be at the top of the governments list right now. As far as hillary or any of the republicans besides Ron Paul, they havn’t mentioned anything of what I have mentioned above. Ask any economics proffessor and they say that the United States is in serious danger within the next 20 years. These issues should be your number one when it comes to voting.</p>
<p>“Ok mini, in your last post you put two words together that should never be in the same sentence effeciant and government. Could you please name me some government programs that are extremely effecient.”</p>
<p>YES. It is so easy. Medicare. 2 1/2 - 3% goes to administration. In the private sector, health insurance overhead is 19%-31% or higher. In my state, my self-insured government health insurance has a monthly premium which is slightly under one-third the same subsidized health care purchased through the private insurance system. The private insurers are so much less efficient that they leave the system at a rate of two a year. </p>
<p>And yesterday’s GAO report indicated that in the prescription drug benefit alone, private insurers administering the program cost YOU an extra $15 billion dollars over what it would have cost if Medicare itself had administered it. Go look at the numbers yourself.</p>
<p>We CAN control medical costs. We know how to do it. We can do it in a competitive marketplace, where doctors and health care providers compete with each other among consumers based on price and quality. We have it right here in Washington State. You can call it socialized medicine if you like (I have no idea why so-called capitalist are afraid of competition - except that they are really corporate socialists.) I call it common sense, based on several decades of real world, in-the-U.S. experience.</p>
<p>As for the defense budget, well it’s not defending me. Oil pipelines maybe. Shipping lanes from China. Halliburton’s corporate execs. It’s defending THEM. Well, let 'em build their own private armies. Oh, wait a minute, they already have (just with my money.)</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>American military presence in Asia has likely brought years of stability that otherwise would not have been there.</p>
<p>The idea that govt is so much less efficient than privatization is the result of a decades long pr effort. As Mini points out, it’s just not true. Medicare is extremely efficient compared to private health insurance. </p>
<p>And we wouldn’t have the huge interest on the national debt were not for the Bush tax cuts and the unfunded war in Iraq. After all, Clinton was paying off the debt, thus reducing the cost for debt service. </p>
<p>When it comes to the debt and deficit, don’t blame govt spending that actually helps the vast bulk of Americans. Before there was Social Security and Medicare, elderly people had a higher poverty rate than the average American but now it is lower. This means they don’t have to rely on their grown children to support them.</p>
<p>“American military presence in Asia has likely brought years of stability that otherwise would not have been there.”</p>
<p>It wasn’t America’s to bring, and probably has put back the cause of Asians working out their own stable arrangements by 50 years.</p>
<p>“As Mini points out, it’s just not true. Medicare is extremely efficient compared to private health insurance.”</p>
<p>And it’s not just Medicare. Today, I HAVE single-payor health insurance, not in Canada, not in England, not in Timbuktu, but right here in the good ol’ U.S., and the private insurers simply can’t compete.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>Would it have been better to let the USSR and PRC bring their own form of “stability” instead? Imagine a Korean peninsula ruled entirely by the DPRK. Or a Japan with a communist government. How would that have been better for Asia and the US? While Japan falling to communism may seem far fetched, don’t forget that in the 50s, Japan’s ruling parties are in a period of tumult that seems rather hard to believe in today’s calm Nihon. </p>
<p>However, a Korea under the DPRK is not so far fetched, when you consider the fact that Kim’s army made it all the way down to Busan before the UN push north.</p>
<p>Would Asia with China, a government whose only reason for continued power is potentially shaky economic growth, as the lead be a whole lot better than the US-Japan alliance? Sure, some Korean politicians may say so, but any serious student of East Asian IR will tell you otherwise. American hegemony at sea has kept the SLOCs open, trade healthy, and the three powers at arm’s distance. If the US left, Japan would ABSOLUTELY grow its military, which has never been historically good.</p>
<p>Would it have been better to let the USSR and PRC bring their own form of “stability” instead?"</p>
<p>Failure of imagination. Imagine a post-WWII where the USSR was aided by a Marshall Plan equivalent to their population and industrial losses in World War II. I doubt there would have been a Cold War. In fact, I doubt there would have been a USSR as it later became past 1955. I doubt there would have been a Korean War. “We” could have done that; “they” didn’t want any part of it.</p>
<p>Oh, well, water over the dam. Now we have popular former Presidents whose representatives can go on national tv and proclaim to the world their killing of half a million children in the name of peace (while negotiating secretly with an Iraqi defense minister to overthrow a government), a General (the AKLCS) who can lie openly to the American public in print (2004), and betray us by arranging for millions of dollars of U.S. weapons to fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda on his watch, with the resulting death and injury to thousands of U.S. men and women, and then preside over ethnic cleansing, to be proclaimed the savior of Iraq. Very, very, very strange world.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>The Cold War was probably inevitable. International relations is such that big powers will always clash. It’s part and parcel of having two large, nuclear armed powers of relatively equal strength at opposite ends of the world. You honestly believe that the USSR would not have continued to compete with the US for resources, security, and hegemony?</p>
<p>You still ignore, however, the DPRK and PRC’s role in this affair. You think that Kim Sung Il would have just let Korea go? Or that Chiang Kai-Shek wouldn’t have gone back from Taiwan again?</p>
<p>Remember, the US 7th wasn’t blocking the PRC. It was blocking Chiang Kai-shek from going back!</p>
<p>How would a continued civil war in China have been better?</p>
<p>I am in agreement with taxguy about the British system (loser pays winner’s legal fees). </p>
<p>Medicaid-something should be done in regard to the elderly in nursing homes. Once the patient’s assets are gone, they qualify for medicaid. Nursing home charges can run over $250/day per patient for basic custodial care.</p>
<p>This thread has gotten far, far off base.
Parent Cafe perhaps?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What happens to cases that settle before trial? Who pays then? Most do settle, FYI. How would this work as a deterrent in those(most) situations? </p>
<p>What about personal injury cases where the injured plaintiff is dirt-poor and hires an attorney on commission (i.e., he only collects fees if the client wins) versus the corporation who spends millions on defense? If the plaintiff loses because his counsel is sub-par, how does he pay those fees? Should he just not file the case because he can’t afford the atty fees if he loses, even though he is wrongly maimed for life?</p>
<p>There is a reason why we don’t have that rule now.</p>
<p>(Sorry to continue the off-topic discussion)</p>
<p>I agree with you Bay.</p>
<p>Well, in a settlement, the terms about legal fees would be part of the settlement, and terms can be whatever they agree to. If someone is dirt poor, guess there’s nothing to collect. How about looking at the frivolous cases? There are plenty of them too.</p>
<p>n’mom,</p>
<p>Yes, of course the fees will be determined as part of the settlement, that is what happens now. How does your proposed rule help deter the filing of any malpractice cases (thus, legal costs) if most cases are already settled anyway?</p>
<p>And with your proposed rule, if the plaintiff is not a millionaire (let alone, dirt poor), how can he bear the risk of losing his suit against a corporation which spends millions on defense? The rule would favor deep-pocket defendants and intimidate the average-Joe plaintiff.</p>
<p>Finally, there are already remedies for frivolous lawsuits on the books.</p>
<p>I’m kinda tired to be answering this now. I guess if people knew that if they lost, they’d need to pay for the other side’s fees, they would make sure that they had a case. As far as rules for frivolous cases on the books, believe me there are plenty of people in this world who sue just about anyone that crosses their path in life to see what they can shake them down for. They get away with it. There are plenty of lawyers who are willing to take cases on contingency fees, or for a much reduced hourly fee (maybe part of it is contingency). It is really amazing. BTW, when I was commenting on taxguy’s post, it was not about malpractice cases, but suits in general.</p>
<p>I don’t see that at all. One of my best friends is a lawyer. Lawyers want to make money. They aren’t going to waste their time on frivolous cases. In the manner of medical cases and lawsuits, you usually have to get some expert witnesses. Well guess what? Professionals don’t like to testify against each other. You need a really strong case. </p>
<p>How much do lawsuits add to medical bills?</p>
<p>I sat on a jury recently and the plaintiff got nothing. She had a lot of medical problems too. She didn’t prove it was the defendant’s fault.</p>
<p>Well studied. It has almost no impact on medical costs.</p>
<p>But I can tell you this: I used to help monitor the actions of medical boards in our state. If you think you are protected either by government or by the profession policing itself, I’ll sell you another bridge. The lawyers are the ONLY force operating in medical circles keeping docs and (especially) health insurers honest, and I say God bless 'em.</p>
<p>I’m with you Mini.</p>
<p>From Post 122…"Has government ever came in and made things better </p>
<p>The TVA helped the central SE USA a lot. How about the GI bill…more up to date what about the weather satellites Thomas Jeffersons aid to education in the early North West Territory days was helpful to me personally and I think the defeat of the Nazis during WWII would be considerer by most as very helpful .</p>