Forums | MacLife

user · 2009-10-22 11:25 pm

KHannon wrote:
user wrote:
Why would intentionality be a factor in a malpractice suit?
Well if you INTENTIONALLY engaged in malpractice, theoretically you have opened yourself up to criminal liability, and to the extent that punitive damages require "extreme and outrageous" conduct, it can elevate the level of damages you would be susceptible to. Even outside of punitive damages, a jury would likely award more pain and suffering to a victim of intentional malpractice than against doctor who simply made a mistake.

Oh, I know, I just wondered why res was bringing it up at all because that's got to be pretty damn rare.

Also, nothing about "emotion driven, it's not justice" makes any sense.

Pariah · 2009-10-23 5:27 am

It has become an article of faith for the right wing that malpractice suits are a MAJOR problem, never mind that calm, deliberative analysis seems to indicate it is a small problem if it's a problem at all.
Personally I am against tort reform on principle. There is few things as crucial to the maintainince of citizens rights then an unrestricted access to and use of the courts to address injustice and injuries.
Even as corporation become larger and larger and thus more "justice proof" the right wants to reduce the power of the individual to defend against these monsters.

Farmerkev · 2009-10-23 6:24 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
:: awaits mass deletion of posts ::

Just so everyone understands, posts don't get deleted. They get moved to where standard users can't see or edit them.
This accomplishes two things. We still have the total record of rule violations we can review if it becomes necessary to take more serious measures regarding a poster and ruining the efforts of someone trying to be cute but only managing to be a jerk.

resedit · 2009-10-23 8:12 am

KHannon wrote:
My point was that debating Res is like trying to debate a moving target because he makes unsupported generalizations without providing the basis for his "beliefs."

Everyone here does.
You don't see it, I'm guessing because you largely agree with them and therefore are not "debating" them to want the level of evidence you want from me, which I think you really only want from me as a debating tactic to break the flow of argument, because this has been discussed all over the media and even here several times.

resedit · 2009-10-23 8:16 am

When I do post links, btw, very often what happens is the source is attacked regardless of whether the content is valid - you see, not being a left winger, I don't have a list of left wing approved sources to go from. So I post links demonstrating the point, and instead of being satisfied, the standard procedure here is to find some reason to reject the source based upon who the source is - and not based upon what they documented.

It is rather tiring, and I get to the point where I just don't give a smurf, if you really want to know it is readily available and easy for you to access. The problem is usually you (not you specifically, board in general) doesn't really want to know.

Daddyo · 2009-10-23 8:46 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
:: awaits mass deletion of posts ::

You must have missed the mini deletion.

Last edited by Daddyo (2009-10-23 9:34 am)

Ribtorus · 2009-10-23 9:34 am

resedit wrote:
When I do post links, btw, very often what happens is the source is attacked regardless of whether the content is valid - you see, not being a left winger, I don't have a list of left wing approved sources to go from. So I post links demonstrating the point, and instead of being satisfied, the standard procedure here is to find some reason to reject the source based upon who the source is - and not based upon what they documented.

It is rather tiring, and I get to the point where I just don't give a smurf, if you really want to know it is readily available and easy for you to access. The problem is usually you (not you specifically, board in general) doesn't really want to know.

It's very important to consider one's sources of information. Bias is everywhere and can make people believe some pretty strange things.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2009-10-23 9:35 am)

RatFink · 2009-10-23 11:57 am

resedit wrote:
Example - beginning of this year I hurt my shoulder. I think I posted on it in unplugged.
Wasn't getting better so I finally went to Doctor. She told me she suspected tendonitus (sp?) but normally would order an MRI but since I didn't have insurance, she would only order one if I was willing to pay. I wasn't, so I just got the steroid shot - if it wasn't better in 24 hours, then I'd have to call back to possibly schedule an MRI.

If I had insurance, an MRI would have been done. Not because she expected to find anything, but more than likely to cover her ass in the off chance that it was something else.

I hate to break it to you, that isn't doctors covering their asses it's bottom tier health coverage. You had a soft tissue injury an MRI with the proper contrast is the only way to see a soft tissue injury. Seeing that injury would give the doctor insight into what the problem is and how extensive it is. A tendon rupture which can require surgery and is largely indistinguishable from tendonitis in that part of the body, the only reason she suspected it was tendonitis is because it is far more common.

Similar thing with the physical therapy you would likely have only had a short session where the PT would show you the exercises and make sure you are doing them correctly as doing them improperly can cause more damage.

KHannon · 2009-10-23 12:43 pm

resedit wrote:
KHannon wrote:
My point was that debating Res is like trying to debate a moving target because he makes unsupported generalizations without providing the basis for his "beliefs."
Everyone here does.
You don't see it, I'm guessing because you largely agree with them and therefore are not "debating" them to want the level of evidence you want from me, which I think you really only want from me as a debating tactic to break the flow of argument, because this has been discussed all over the media and even here several times.

Believe it or not I do not extensively examine every post on this forum, I tend to really only focus in on a thread when it touches on something that a) I care about or b) I am aware of because of my profession. Here, both a) & b) are satisfied. There are times other posters have failed to support their statements and I haven't had to say anything because either you or someone else has called them on it for links. Its not really needed for me to say anything.

Regarding its coverage in the media, all I have heard---on BOTH sides---in the media are (sorry to use the phrase again), unsupported generalizations about the supposed problem with defensive medicine and figures that include no explanation as to how they were arrived at. When the entire public debate swirls around a lack of support, it makes pointing out that one's argument is not supported all the more important.

If you have discussed this on here previously and supported the assertions (such that in this thread you are merely restating your arguments that those more involved in the forum would be aware of), then you can disregard what I said, perhaps I missed it. But I haven't seen it.

And I don't think this forum needs any help from me to "break the flow of the argument," I think that happens every 3 or 4 posts by itself tongue

KHannon · 2009-10-23 12:47 pm

resedit wrote:
When I do post links, btw, very often what happens is the source is attacked regardless of whether the content is valid - you see, not being a left winger, I don't have a list of left wing approved sources to go from. So I post links demonstrating the point, and instead of being satisfied, the standard procedure here is to find some reason to reject the source based upon who the source is - and not based upon what they documented.

It is rather tiring, and I get to the point where I just don't give a smurf, if you really want to know it is readily available and easy for you to access. The problem is usually you (not you specifically, board in general) doesn't really want to know.

I have never attacked you for supporting your beliefs from any source. I may attack the SOURCE for a number of reasons (methodology, bias of the author, or something like that), but never the fact that you chose to support your belief with it. I don't attempt to engage in a discussion unless I know where the other person is coming from factually, otherwise you are just going to have two people talking past each other. Whether the basis for one's opinion is anecdotal, flawed, or a paradigm of statistical perfection, having the basis allows the argument to focus on the issue rather than the rhetoric.

isaly · 2009-10-25 9:40 pm

Farmerkev wrote:
KHannon wrote:
resedit wrote:

It's not just the awards and resulting cost of insurance, it's the cost of tests that doctors order that they normally wouldn't because they want as much documentation as they can get when their diagnosis is questioned before a jury of regular joe's who haven't been to medical school.
Unsupported generalization.
The cost of defensive medicine is not unsupported nor is this a court of law.
If it would make you happy to have a link to get your education started-
http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/090223/09022302.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnny-be … 43537.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125193312967181349.html

Part of the problem with those arguments is that people are all different, and as a result, may present symptoms of disease differently. Someone who presents with only 2 or 3 symptoms of something may be in an early stage and there's not always a given order in which symptoms manifest. So. . . the doctor orders a battery of tests to confirm or rule something out and it turns out I don't have the condition in question. . . is that "defensive medicine"?

At least as far as cancer is concerned, the earlier you catch it the better the prognosis. Seems like a no brainer to me.

resedit · 2009-10-25 10:17 pm

One thing to note - with malpractice insurance resulting in Doctors in ordering tests that are not necessary, insurance companies have increased costs because they pay for those tests.

This leads them to either drop the patient, or refuse to pay for the tests.
The former is bad for obvious reasons, the latter is bad because now you have administrators making the decision instead of the doctor, which is why you often have to fight with them to get the test covered.

If we don't solve the malpractice problem, the problem will still be there - only it will be the government, not the insurance company, trying to decide which tests get paid for.

Reform how malpractice is handled so that doctors don't order tests they really don't need just to cover their asses, and costs will drop without third parties who haven't been through medical school or examined the patient deciding which tests get paid for.

Metacell · 2009-10-26 12:26 am

resedit wrote:
If we don't solve the malpractice problem, the problem will still be there - only it will be the government, not the insurance company, trying to decide which tests get paid for.

Infinitely preferable as the government can be held accountable and better coverage == more votes.

resedit · 2009-10-26 12:33 am

Um, no.
Insurance industry can be regulated, and is much easier to sue. Furthermore, you can choose a different insurance company.
Choosing a different government is not quite as easy.

Kripto · 2009-10-26 1:09 am

Can anyone tell me what value private insurance brings to the system?

It seems to me that all their existence accomplishes is the insertion of a money drain in between the patient that needs care and the organizations which provide it.

I'm a huge fan of capitalism as a means of innovation and thus believe that we as a nation must secure effective health care for all so as to establish a solid base from which our populace can compete financially with other nations around the world.

resedit · 2009-10-26 2:35 am

Kripto wrote:
Can anyone tell me what value private insurance brings to the system?

Competition.
Although that is severely limited by laws that need to go away.

As the San Francisco business owner said on Fox awhile back - she owns a small bakery, there are thousands of insurance companies in the country, but only 5 or 6 she is legally allowed to choose from.

It seems to me that all their existence accomplishes is the insertion of a money drain in between the patient that needs care and the organizations which provide it.

Then don't buy insurance. Put the money in a bank account so when you need it, you can get your coverage without going through a middle man.

Oh wait, but what if you trip and fall down the stairs before you have saved enough ...
THAT'S the value of insurance. Same as fire, flood, earthquake, etc.

Of course the average person pays more over their lifetime than what they get out.
That's the cost of being covered before you've paid in as much as the procedure costs.
That's the general insurance model - they all work that way.

resedit · 2009-10-26 2:37 am

Not that long ago, Lindsey Lohan (I think it was her) lost an acting job because her erratic behavior resulted in a really high cost of the studio insurance were they to cast her - you know, the insurance they pay to save their assets should an actor die or something during filming causing them to need to start over.

Maybe that insurance should be federalized too.

Bat · 2009-10-26 3:10 am

WASHINGTON (AP) - Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.

For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.

These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss the private negotiations involving key Senate Democrats and the White House. They also stressed that no final decisions have been made on the details of the measure, expected to reach the Senate floor in about two weeks.

Coverage expanded to millions
In general, the bill taking shape in private talks led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is designed to answer President Barack Obama's call to remake the nation's health care system. It would expand coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denial of coverage for pre-existing medical conditions and slow the growth in medical spending nationally.

Like a companion measure in the House, it would create a new federally regulated marketplace, termed an exchange, where individuals and families could purchase insurance sold by private industry. Federal subsidies would be available to help those at lower incomes afford the cost.

Subsidies would also be available to smaller businesses as an incentive for them to provide insurance.

Senate likely to cut employer mandate

isaly · 2009-10-26 4:37 am

resedit wrote:
Kripto wrote:
Can anyone tell me what value private insurance brings to the system?
Competition.
Although that is severely limited by laws that need to go away.

As the San Francisco business owner said on Fox awhile back - she owns a small bakery, there are thousands of insurance companies in the country, but only 5 or 6 she is legally allowed to choose from.

It seems to me that all their existence accomplishes is the insertion of a money drain in between the patient that needs care and the organizations which provide it.
Then don't buy insurance. Put the money in a bank account so when you need it, you can get your coverage without going through a middle man.

Oh wait, but what if you trip and fall down the stairs before you have saved enough ...
THAT'S the value of insurance. Same as fire, flood, earthquake, etc.

Of course the average person pays more over their lifetime than what they get out.
That's the cost of being covered before you've paid in as much as the procedure costs.
That's the general insurance model - they all work that way.

The competition isn't offering better, cheaper, more innovative products tho'. . . as far as insurance is concerned.

And the value of insurance?? would be a moot point with single payer, wouldn't it?

resedit · 2009-10-26 4:57 am

isaly wrote:
The competition isn't offering better, cheaper, more innovative products tho'. . . as far as insurance is concerned.

Different plans have different advantages and drawbacks.

Pariah · 2009-10-26 5:35 am

resedit wrote:
Um, no.
Insurance industry can be regulated, and is much easier to sue. Furthermore, you can choose a different insurance company.
Choosing a different government is not quite as easy.

Very, very few people have the option of changing insurance companies, unless you count having to go get an entirely new job as "insurance choice".
As long as insurance is bundled with employment the whole issue of "choice" is a red herring.

resedit · 2009-10-26 5:56 am

Pariah wrote:
resedit wrote:
Um, no.
Insurance industry can be regulated, and is much easier to sue. Furthermore, you can choose a different insurance company.
Choosing a different government is not quite as easy.
Very, very few people have the option of changing insurance companies

But HR departments can and do change insurance companies when employees bring up issues they are having.

Pariah · 2009-10-26 6:07 am

resedit wrote:
Pariah wrote:
resedit wrote:
Um, no.
Insurance industry can be regulated, and is much easier to sue. Furthermore, you can choose a different insurance company.
Choosing a different government is not quite as easy.
Very, very few people have the option of changing insurance companies
But HR departments can and do change insurance companies when employees bring up issues they are having.

Um...ever work for a small business?
They are offered few choices themselves because they are too small for many insurers to bother with.

resedit · 2009-10-26 6:37 am

Pariah wrote:
They are offered few choices themselves because they are too small for many insurers to bother with.

I already addressed that - quoting the San Francisco bakery owner that was on Fox complaining about laws prevented her from choosing from the thousands of companies out there.

We do no need reform, that reform needs to increase choice - not take it away.

resedit · 2009-10-26 6:38 am

btw - what small businesses commonly do here is join an association of small businesses that increases their buying power, which gives them more choice and lowers their cost.

Forums | MacLife

#51 2009-10-22 11:25 pm

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

KHannon wrote:

user wrote:

#52 2009-10-23 5:27 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#53 2009-10-23 6:24 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#54 2009-10-23 8:12 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

KHannon wrote:

#55 2009-10-23 8:16 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#56 2009-10-23 8:46 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

ShnickyShnack wrote:

#57 2009-10-23 9:34 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

#58 2009-10-23 11:57 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

#59 2009-10-23 12:43 pm

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

KHannon wrote:

#60 2009-10-23 12:47 pm

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

#61 2009-10-25 9:40 pm

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

Farmerkev wrote:

KHannon wrote:

resedit wrote:

#62 2009-10-25 10:17 pm

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#63 2009-10-26 12:26 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

#64 2009-10-26 12:33 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#65 2009-10-26 1:09 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#66 2009-10-26 2:35 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

Kripto wrote:

#67 2009-10-26 2:37 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#68 2009-10-26 3:10 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

#69 2009-10-26 4:37 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

Kripto wrote:

#70 2009-10-26 4:57 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

isaly wrote:

#71 2009-10-26 5:35 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

#72 2009-10-26 5:56 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

#73 2009-10-26 6:07 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

#74 2009-10-26 6:37 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

Pariah wrote:

#75 2009-10-26 6:38 am

Re: Dems play hardball with the insurance douches

Board footer