• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Economist on Healthcare

No idea why anyone even pays attention to RJ on these threads. He's proven to have no clue what he's talking about re: healthcare. Or political strategy.

I'm not really sure what he is proven to have a clue about really. Maybe someone can help me.
 
WFU71 said:
Rj, you've ruined a pretty good thread. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

It's always got to be about him and he never understands why people get agitated with his hysterical episodes. I've seen 39 month pregnant women with less hormonal issues than RJ has on a typical day.
 
Last edited:
Liquid Karma said:
I thought you finally decided it was OK to make or laugh at Jew jokes?

http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2479

How do you start a Jewish marathon?
Click to expand...

First of all it's offensive to call it JEW jokes. You might as say N jokes. It's that offensive.

Next using one history's most despicable political cartoons to insult is NEVER OK. The original purpose of the cartoon that Milhouse used was to create hatred and justify the Holocaust.

There is no way to make that funny. The fact that ONLY you and Milhouse thought it was OK should have given you a hint.

The issue here would be over if people who weren't directly involved didn't keep it going.

We could be back on track, but again it's my fault that you keep the problem going.
 
Back to the subject of the thread, if we are allowed to do it.

One of the biggest causes of the use of "defensive medicine" are the malpractice insurance companies. If they told the public the truth that payments for mnallpractice cases have been flat for over twenty years as a percentage of revenues, then then couldn't screw the doctors by increasing their premiums so outrageously.

The malpractice companies put doctors and patients in a bad way.
 
Medical Malpractice Statistics

rj is correct. But it should be noted that malpractice insurance as a percent of total health care cost has decreased:

14. There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995; 84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and 86,480 in 2000.
While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52 percent over that time.Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low.
Malpractice insurance costs amount to only 3.2 percent of the average physician’s revenues.
Few medical errors ever result in legal claims. Only one malpractice claim is made for every 7.6 hospital injuries, according to a Harvard study. Further, plaintiffs drop 10 times more claims than they pursue, according to Physician Insurer Association of America data.
 
Dirk, malpractice claims account for under .5 of 1% of the average physicians revenues. There is no justification for a for at least a 640% higher premuim than recovery rate.

Malpracitce insurance companies are screwing doctors and the public horrifically.
 
Now you're getting me all tingly. Can you give me some names? What is their PE ratio?
 
RJKarl said:
Back to the subject of the thread, if we are allowed to do it. One of the biggest causes of the use of "defensive medicine" are the malpractice insurance companies. If they told the public the truth that payments for mnallpractice cases have been flat for over twenty years as a percentage of revenues, then then couldn't screw the doctors by increasing their premiums so outrageously.


The malpractice companies put doctors and patients in a bad way.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure only one person has derailed this thread.
 
right now it's you....why didn't you comment on the subject?
 
So is this the thread where all you libs finally admit to the world that your entire motive for health care reform is to convert to a single payer system? How much longer do we have to pretend that the farce that is Obamacare is nothing more than the opening act.
 
Last edited:
BillBrasky said:
So is this the thread where all you libs finally admit to the world that your entire motive for health care reform is to convert to a single payer system? How much longer do we have to pretend tat the farce that is Obamacare is nothing more than the opening act.
Click to expand...

Not for a second, but it was developing into an intelligent and civil discussion.
 
"Obamacare" was the first step towards saving moeny on Medicare. Getting rid of Senior Advantage saved the country over $500B without taking away a single bit of anyone's coverage.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
It's already happening. We tax all sorts of "bad" behavior. When you set the tax high enough people will stop doing it. When a Big Mac costs $8... goodbye McDonalds. And the news today is sitting is almost as bad as smoking. So, if you have an office job you can look forward to a chair tax.

Insurers just react to this sort of thing and try to make money banking on the fact that people who will not have serious medical issues will subsidize the others in the pool that do. The government does the same thing through taxation. Perhaps I could eat an $8 Big Mac every day for the rest of my life and not have a heart attack but my neighbor does. The government doesn't care. The tax is the same for both of us. The government is no different from United Health Care in that regard. And I know we don't tax Big Macs today but don't bank on tomorrow. And watch your office chair...
Click to expand...
Yea, the government wants everyone to be treated equally even though they aren't and basically take away choice for everyone because of a few.

If you want better health for everyone, the solution isn't to tax everyone that eats Big Macs, the solution should be to penalize those people who are at risk for over-eating Big Macs and reward those for working to be healthy. I don't want to pay a higher tax on a Big Mac because I'm not at risk, so I'm going to be against paying that tax. It's unfair.

And under the "tax everyone" and "subsidize the sick with the healthy" system we have, how does a company promote a prevention measure? It would have to work for everyone for it to be cost effective unless you identified those at risk, and by definition it can not. It would only work for those that needed it. Moreover, the people at risk have no incentive to do it on their own. If individual risk were evaluated and tied to insurance, they would have the $$ incentive to live healthier and reduce their premium much like safer driving reduces car insurance.
 
pourdeac said:
Yea, the government wants everyone to be treated equally even though they aren't and basically take away choice for everyone because of a few.

If you want better health for everyone, the solution isn't to tax everyone that eats Big Macs, the solution should be to penalize those people who are at risk for over-eating Big Macs and reward those for working to be healthy. I don't want to pay a higher tax on a Big Mac because I'm not at risk, so I'm going to be against paying that tax. It's unfair.

And under the "tax everyone" and "subsidize the sick with the healthy" system we have, how does a company promote a prevention measure? It would have to work for everyone for it to be cost effective unless you identified those at risk, and by definition it can not. It would only work for those that needed it. Moreover, the people at risk have no incentive to do it on their own. If individual risk were evaluated and tied to insurance, they would have the $$ incentive to live healthier and reduce their premium much like safer driving reduces car insurance.
Click to expand...

You do realize the Pandora's Box this concept would open?
 
ONW said:
You do realize the Pandora's Box this concept would open?
Click to expand...

The path to lower medical trend? This idea has a lot of merit so long as its managed with a high risk pool product. You need good pool management and this is a good place to start.

I also dont buy the other comment about the inability of the employer to control trend. The employer system does have well known shortcomings....However, don't discount the role the employer can play in managing expenses. There are some very savvy employers who are starting to really put contribution $ at risk based on behavior. And its working.
 
CHDeac said:
The path to lower medical trend? This idea has a lot of merit so long as its managed with a high risk pool product. You need good pool management and this is a good place to start.

I also dont buy the other comment about the inability of the employer to control trend. The employer system does have well known shortcomings....However, don't discount the role the employer can play in managing expenses. There are some very savvy employers who are starting to really put contribution $ at risk based on behavior. And its working.
Click to expand...

I understand the higher risk concept, but do you really want your employer looking over your shoulder to makr sure you're jogging daily and not eating fast food?
 
CHDeac said:
The path to lower medical trend? This idea has a lot of merit so long as its managed with a high risk pool product. You need good pool management and this is a good place to start.

I also dont buy the other comment about the inability of the employer to control trend. The employer system does have well known shortcomings....However, don't discount the role the employer can play in managing expenses. There are some very savvy employers who are starting to really put contribution $ at risk based on behavior. And its working.
Click to expand...

And wouldn't everyone over the age of 60 get pushed into a high risk category?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top