Damn the science, I'm a lawyer and I want to sue somebody!

bearsfolks: Damn the science, I'm a lawyer and I want to sue somebody!

Yes, because insurance companies always decline claims based solely on the science.

Dinki: bearsfolks: Damn the science, I'm a lawyer and I want to sue somebody!

Yes, because insurance companies always decline claims based solely on the science.

What makes you think that a government run program would behave any differently?

Weaver95: What makes you think that a government run program would behave any differently?

I can't answer for Dinki, but for myself the answer to your question would be "Living in Canada for a year and seeing how it went for people there."

unlikely: Weaver95: What makes you think that a government run program would behave any differently?

I can't answer for Dinki, but for myself the answer to your question would be "Living in Canada for a year and seeing how it went for people there."

I'd like to see the canadians administer health care coverage for philadelphia for a couple of months.

Weaver95: I'd like to see the canadians administer health care coverage for philadelphia for a couple of months.


Are you always this insane or only when you try extra hard?

pwhp_67: Weaver95: I'd like to see the canadians administer health care coverage for philadelphia for a couple of months.


Are you always this insane or only when you try extra hard?

I think none of the current health care plans currently being floated around this country are anywhere NEAR to addressing the realities of our situation.

At first my thought was 'yeah, that's what lawyers do', then I read the article.

Weaver95 might be right about the currently-floated plans lacking substance...but there has got to be a better way to go about this than by stuffing all the money in the system into a handful of executives' pockets.

Hrm.
Deregulation of big medicine... doing the necessary work to bring down total research costs and the markup on perscription drugs... gutting out the souless cores of most insurance companies... yeah, yeah I'm cool with that.

He's just mad that he's not practicing ambulance chasing any more and can't get a piece of this big juicy settlement.

John Edwards tonight cited the case of a 17-year-old California girl who died after her insurance company refused coverage on a liver transplant to save her life as a call to action to change the current system of healthcare in America.

I'm all for universal healthcare, but how would this situation be any different underneath it?

Weaver95:
What makes you think that a government run program would behave any differently?

Medicare?

A lawyer would never admit it was government and law that assisted the big businesses to have a stranglehold on health care. When it comes to medicine, it's natural for a lawyer to prescribe more law.

I suggest taking a different direction entirely, and going back to what was working before big business lobbying took over.

bearsfolks: Damn the science, I'm a lawyer and I want to sue somebody!

What science? There was no science used in denying her the health coverage for the procedure. They just didnt want to pay for it. It dosent take a scientist to see that CIGNA effectivley let someone die who could have been saved from this type of death. The hospital is no better because they should have done the procedure regardless of the patietns ability yo pay. They should have decided to save this girls life. What adds insult to injury however was the letter released by CIGNA to the press. It was laughable at best. The truth of the matter is Health insurance companies dont see people they only see money. What a sad sad health care system we have. Edwards is absolutley justified in using this case for pushing his health care agenda. Its a great example of life and death being hinged on beauacracy. Vote Edwards 2008!

/I dont know what the solution is. All I know is what we have is not working.

Precious Snowflake: He's just mad that he's not practicing ambulance chasing any more and can't get a piece of this big juicy settlement.

I suppose his opponents painted butterflies and gave homeless people blowjobs? I'm not voting for Edwards, but what kind of saintly occupation do you think generally precedes public office? Everyone running for president (and nearly everyone in national public office) is phenomenally rich. Do you think anyone can make the amount of money that can sustain a political career by not cheating a hell of a lot of people out of their money?

OMG did you know Edwards was a lawyer !!!1eleventy eleven!11

Christ folks. That has zero to do with the issues

moothemagiccow: John Edwards tonight cited the case of a 17-year-old California girl who died after her insurance company refused coverage on a liver transplant to save her life as a call to action to change the current system of healthcare in America.

I'm all for universal healthcare, but how would this situation be any different underneath it?

The hospital would have done the procedure if her medical coverage had coverd it. IT didnt so they wouldnt do the procedure. Whay cant a person who needs a life saving surgery get it even if they dont have insurance. Its just idiotic. Both the Hospital and CIGNA are to blame for letting this girl die. The sad part is it will happen again and has already happend multiple times today. This is just the only story that got news coverage.

Don't negotiate? When W takes that approach the liberals deride him as a cowboy.

BiffDangler: Don't negotiate? When W takes that approach the liberals deride him as a cowboy.

That's when it comes to other world leaders because global politics and war *can* sometimes be more complicated than legislating healthcare.

So when did Edwards spend hire Chavez as his campaign manager?

I don't like Edwards much, but I this is an issue I can hope he's not pandering about. It would be great if Obama and Edwards got at each other to see who could provide American's better health care. That kind of posturing would be much more tolerable than competing to see who can protect us from the phantom menace.

BiffDangler: Don't negotiate? When W takes that approach the liberals deride him as a cowboy.

Health insurance companies and foreign nations are two seperate things. But since your a Bush supporter it makes since youd think there were any similarities.

AngryDragon: So when did Edwards spend hire Chavez as his campaign manager?

So who did you blowjob for to get Dubya as your English teacher?

Cigna originally tried to get out of this by claiming the procedure was experimental. I don't know enough about this to have an opinion on that. All I will say is that people are delusional if they think a government administered health care system would not try to ration health care in a similar way to reduce costs. And it might be the correct thing to do if a procedure really is experimental.

Killer Miller: Cigna originally tried to get out of this by claiming the procedure was experimental. I don't know enough about this to have an opinion on that. All I will say is that people are delusional if they think a government administered health care system would not try to ration health care in a similar way to reduce costs. And it might be the correct thing to do if a procedure really is experimental.

According to the story that aired last night, they had a number of doctors look at her and all of them said the procedure was absolutely necessary, some going as far as to say she had a 60% chance of survival.

Bottom line: the ONLY party that thought it was "experimental" was Cigna.

Here is some interesting information on where Edwards gets most of his money.

Given how many lawyers/law firms donate to his campaign - do you really think Edwards will push for meaningful and comprehensive reform to medical malpractice insurance law(s)? Or do you think he'll pay more attention to the people who've given him $8,161,150 so far this season?

Be honest....

BiffDangler: I'm not a bush supporter, I think he is one of the worst presidents ever.
But, I find it amusing that you want to negotiate with Iran and North Korea, but not health insurance companies.
it's kinda sad that you can't see the difference there.

Killer Miller: All I will say is that people are delusional if they think a government administered health care system would not try to ration health care in a similar way to reduce costs.

Rationing healthcare in a similar way doesn't say anything about how successful they are in doing so.

One criticism of a more socialized system is the supposedly huge bureaucratic costs of implementation. However, the US pays 31% of its healthcare dollar to pay for administration, as compared to Canada's 16% (source), due to the hundreds of tiny bureaucracies in each corporation providing healthcare, and physicians having to hire on extra help just to deal with them. The harder it is to cut through the red tape, the more profit is made by the corporation. This is simply the way things are with businesses who provide their services at a later date- any reason to deny service results in profit.

/click my profile, read the soapbox.

BiffDangler: torque420


I'm not a bush supporter, I think he is one of the worst presidents ever.



But, I find it amusing that you want to negotiate with Iran and North Korea, but not health insurance companies.

I think you missed the point. They are two different things. And therefore should be handled differently. I find it amusing you cant see the difference!

Weaver95: do you really think Edwards will push for meaningful and comprehensive reform to medical malpractice insurance law(s)?

I think meaningful and comprehensive reform for the companies that provide malpractice insurance would be more helpful.

Make them non-profit.

hillbillypharmacist: Weaver95: do you really think Edwards will push for meaningful and comprehensive reform to medical malpractice insurance law(s)?

I think meaningful and comprehensive reform for the companies that provide malpractice insurance would be more helpful.

Make them non-profit.

I used to work for Blue Shield (a non-profit health care corporation). Believe me - 'non profit' does not mean 'better'. In fact, I don't think i've ever seen a more inefficent, bloated, and corrupt adminstration. The Pennsylvannia Blue Shield plan has been busted for illegal campaign donations, medicare fraud, waste and corruption more times than I can count.

*facepalm*

Torque421, you are just wrong. Doctors, not involved in this case, say any kind of transplant is doomed to failure because the immunosuppressant drugs needed would let the cancer run wild. The is very little support for transplantation in cancer treatment, except for T-cells for leukemia. Do you see value in spending several hundred thousand dollars for an operation you know won't work? Besides, the insurance company didn't say she couldn't have the surgery, only that they wouldn't cover it.

Basically, get rid of malpractice lawsuits and standardize settlements so that injured people will be taken care of, and that the person responsible is punished. This way doctors and others can actually own their own business, and reduce the provider/patient ratio while allowing everyone to make money. Socialism will just give crappy healthcare to everyone and will not work in the US (imagine your taxes going up by a lot.) A big change is going to happen, and hopefully people will vote with their brains instead of their Bibles.

Weaver95:
I used to work for Blue Shield (a non-profit health care corporation). Believe me - 'non profit' does not mean 'better'. In fact, I don't think i've ever seen a more inefficent, bloated, and corrupt adminstration. The Pennsylvannia Blue Shield plan has been busted for illegal campaign donations, medicare fraud, waste and corruption more times than I can count.

The Insurance Commissioner of California just announced last week that he wants to fine Blue Shield over $12 million for their policy cancellation practices.

Weaver95: Dinki: bearsfolks: Damn the science, I'm a lawyer and I want to sue somebody!

Yes, because insurance companies always decline claims based solely on the science.

What makes you think that a government run program would behave any differently?

Because its not for profit. A free-market society is great. However, I, like most people, am in favor of restricting a free-market when it comes to certain things, like: Police, Fire, EMS, Education, Science Research, Product Regulation, and now Health.

I'd love to hear how Edwards plans on increasing the supply of organs to match the increase in transplant approvals.

That should be good for a quick LoL

Malicious Bastard: I'd love to hear how Edwards plans on increasing the supply of organs to match the increase in transplant approvals.

That should be good for a quick LoL

By eliminating seatbelt laws?

Weaver95: I used to work for Blue Shield (a non-profit health care corporation). Believe me - 'non profit' does not mean 'better'.

Point taken- but non-profits with strict rules about how money can be spent (and if rules are not met, premiums must be lowered to cost) can be better.

Northern

Why are you so convinced that socialism will mean crappy care?

These insurance companies are only in business to make money, not help patients. Doctors and nurses treat patients, not insurance companies. Maybe that girl would have lived if CIGNA had approved the transplant right away, maybe not. Autopsy and medical records will decide that. But someone in that insurance company made a decision to deny the transplant. If that person was a doctor, they should have examined the patient, and her records. if that person is not a doctor, they should be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. You wouldn't hire a chef to fix your brakes, you don't hire some bean counter to make a medical decision. You get a doctor. Insurance companies are only middlemen taking money that should be going for medical expenses to build their fancy buildings, pay bosses big bonuses, and pay lobbyists the big bucks to bribe politicians so they can stay in business. Medicine, doctor labor, equipment are real medical costs. Along with the people who keep the hospitals running, such as the orderlies, the cooks, maintainance staff and such. No insurance company ever directly treated any patient.

hillbillypharmacist: Weaver95: I used to work for Blue Shield (a non-profit health care corporation). Believe me - 'non profit' does not mean 'better'.

Point taken- but non-profits with strict rules about how money can be spent (and if rules are not met, premiums must be lowered to cost) can be better.

Yeah, but without excessive, intrusive and expensive oversight they won't behave themselves on their own. And why should they? Given current law(s), they can pretty much screw over their subscribers and get away with it. That's why we need a complete overhaul of our health care system. We need to fix the way companies handle health care, we need to address the medical professions conduct AND we need to confront the excessess of the legal profession and their view that the whole thing is like a giant lottery machine they can keep hitting until they win a big payoff.

Weaver95: Yeah, but without excessive, intrusive and expensive oversight they won't behave themselves on their own. And why should they? Given current law(s), they can pretty much screw over their subscribers and get away with it. That's why we need a complete overhaul of our health care system. We need to fix the way companies handle health care, we need to address the medical professions conduct AND we need to confront the excessess of the legal profession and their view that the whole thing is like a giant lottery machine they can keep hitting until they win a big payoff.

That's certainly all true.

One way to make them behave is to offer financial incentive for the ones that do, meaning that there should be several non-profits in direct competition. Several facets of our healthcare should be changed entirely. Business has to be disconnected from healthcare, so that small businesses aren't disproportionately burdened with their workers.

hillbillypharmacist: Several facets of our healthcare should be changed entirely. Business has to be disconnected from healthcare, so that small businesses aren't disproportionately burdened with their workers.

I'd give tax breaks to any corporation that comes up with a comprehensive health care plan for their workers. The greater the coverage, the larger the tax break. More employees, more coverage, the bigger the tax break. Oh - and if you move your jobs out of the country, you get no break at all.

And any worker who wants can have his social security taxes instead plugged into his health care plan to reduce the cost of his plan for himself or his family. So if someone gets REALLY sick and they're in over their heads, they've got credits they can throw at their insurance company.

simpsonfan: These insurance companies are only in business to make money, not help patients. Doctors and nurses treat patients, not insurance companies. Maybe that girl would have lived if CIGNA had approved the transplant right away, maybe not. Autopsy and medical records will decide that. But someone in that insurance company made a decision to deny the transplant. If that person was a doctor, they should have examined the patient, and her records. if that person is not a doctor, they should be arrested for practicing medicine without a license. You wouldn't hire a chef to fix your brakes, you don't hire some bean counter to make a medical decision. You get a doctor. Insurance companies are only middlemen taking money that should be going for medical expenses to build their fancy buildings, pay bosses big bonuses, and pay lobbyists the big bucks to bribe politicians so they can stay in business. Medicine, doctor labor, equipment are real medical costs. Along with the people who keep the hospitals running, such as the orderlies, the cooks, maintainance staff and such. No insurance company ever directly treated any patient.

Well put, sir. +1

Insurance companies are the most crooked thieves on the face of the planet. Lawyers are a close second.

Torque420: The truth of the matter is Health insurance companies don't see people they only see money.

And how would you suggest running a company? In any manner other than a profitable one? Good luck staying in business for any appreciable length of time.

Here is a rough example:
Your health insurance company takes on X number of dollars. Your overhead to pay all employees is Y number of dollars. Your investors expect Z number of dollars as a profit in a give year. And just for good measure, your customers are biatching about premium prices and won't pay more than A number of dollars in a given year for coverage. As a CEO, you gotta figure out how to take X dollars, subtract Y dollars to pay your employees, keep prices reasonable so that you can charge your customers A dollars or less so you don't loose revenue, and still show a profit of Z dollars so you still have major investors in your company.

Like it or not, insurance companies do serve a large amount of good for the bulk of people not suffering from expensive diseases. Is that fair? No, that's life. Like it or not some people get seriously sick, fall by the side, and die from lack of expensive treatment that *might* help them life a little bit longer. It's a huge ethical consideration, but what if CIGNA has paid for this liver transplant and the girl had died from serious complications anyways. Wouldn't the money have been better spent on helping 10 or 100 other people suffering from much more mundane and more treatable illnesses? What if CIGNA went around paying huge amounts of money for anything and everything to support expensive and experimental treatment that may or may not extend people's lives to the point where they couldn't make payroll. Are the employees of CIGNA going to work for free? What if CIGNA spent so much money, they missed their earnings predictions and they then had a revolt of the investors? The company could go under, and how would that help people?

Quoting Spock; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Torque420: Why cant a person who needs a life saving surgery get it even if they don't have insurance?

For the above mentioned reasons, hospitals also need to turn a profit to stay in business. Give away too much money on hugely expensive surgeries for one person, and if you close your doors from bankruptcy you then can't treat hundreds or thousands of other people who have much more manageable conditions.

Weaver95 That's smart in that it leaves the corporation with a profit if it comes up with a competitive program, but it does ultimately still leave taxpayers footing the bill for healthcare. If you're going to do that, why not have directly government-run system, and cut out the actuaries?