Scientists Find Another, More Reasonable Universe
by MikeGeneI'm just starting to get over a nasty flu, so for now, I leave you with this:
String theorists have discovered an alternate universe where April Fool's Day falls on April 3rd, specifically out of courtesy to a certain science journalist who spent April 1st learning about pharmacogenetic testing and regulation.
Though careful to specify that this universe exists only in mathematical proofs validated by the quantum state of photons perceived by bleary eyes under deadline pressure, the corroboration is strong enough to permit the extrapolation of other features, many of which are similarly agreeable to this journalist. To wit:
God and Science. People who believe in God, or Gods, don't try to explain the age of the world or the characteristics of its inhabitants in ways that are blatantly contradicted by the testable application of rational thought.
Supporters of science refrain from denigrating religion simply to make themselves feel better. What's really dangerous, they've realized, is fanaticism and dogma of all sorts, religious and secular. They are less concerned with "God genes" than "compassionless righteousness genes," and understand that even science has its limits and shouldn't be invoked as an absolute authority in questions of morality.
After all, agree both God-fearers and Darwin-lovers, if your car blows a tire, you need a car jack and a helping hand, not a Bible or the latest Richard Dawkins treatise.
April 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
A universe where people are reasonable and kind. Where's the wormhole to it? Also from the link:
Something that greatly detracts from our quality of life is the American tort system. It badly needs overhaul for it encourages greed and discourages innovation. It no longer does what legal apologists have long argued is one of its benefits- inhibit wrongful actions. The reason being that defendants recognize the Alice in Wonderland aspect of our legal system which penalizes not injustice, but deep pockets.
Virtually all new drugs entail one major drawback. There is some subset of humanity, however small, which will suffer adverse reactions from taking it. Even thorough testing trials cannot always determine who will be at risk. That subset has legal recourse and costs us plenty. It matters not if a drug beneficially impacts 99.99% of the population. If there is a tiny group it adversely impacts drug companies and the rest of us will pay big time. This is insanity. There are other ways of legally compenasting victims without throwing a straight jacket around the rest of us.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I thought greed was good. Engine of capitalism or something.
And Bradford, do you have hard numbers demonstrating that drugs cost so much because of the tiny percentage of patients who get adverse side effects? Or are you just venting your frustration?
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I do not have hard figures at my fingertips but they are accesible. Court verdicts are a matter of public record and huge settlements well publicized. The point is if biology itself indicates that almost any drug is likely to adversely impact some people then it is not a matter of justice to penalize manufacturers when rare allergic reactions occur. It's about money. If you think that only impacts fat cats you're wrong.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Bradford:
Yeah, the American legal system is rigged in favor of the poor. It's an outrage.
Good heavens Bradford, you've become a caricature of yourself. Take a break from blogging.
Comment by Raevmo — April 6, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
You're displaying your ignorance which is common when you delve into topics unrelated to your field of expertise. About one-third of the money that is awarded to plaintiffs ends up in the pockets of well healed law firms or their surrogates. Don't assume that all plaintiffs are poor. That might be ideologically satisfying but not accurate.
When I get reactions like yours I know I'm doing something right.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I really liked this:
Reminds me of a favorite quote from Wayne Oates' book The Psychology of Religion: "What many people call 'religion,' Jesus called 'sin.'"
Comment by Lutepisc — April 6, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Indeed. The objects of his harshest criticisms were the religious leaders of his day and he focused on their sinful actions.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Bradford:
I like the irony. I haven't noticed much self-restraint around here in delving into topics unrelated to one's field of expertise.
I hate to admit it, but I've read my share of Grishams and Turows, so I was well aware of this. And what is wrong with that? Clients are accepted at no-cure-no-pay basis.
I'm all for deeper pockets paying steeper financial penalties. In some Scandinavian countries speeding tickets are proportional to income. I've heard of a speeding ticket in Finland on the order of $1 million. Love it.
Comment by Raevmo — April 6, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Bradford,
If they're easily accessible, perhaps you can point me in the right direction. As to "huge settlements", these are pretty rare occurrences and I am not certain that they would strongly reflect on the price of drugs. You're welcome to dispute that but at the end of the day we'll need the numbers.
I poked around the web and found an article in Psychiatric News, a medical trade journal, from August 2003, entitled Cost of bringing new drugs to market rising rapidly. The article mentions rising costs of clinical testing of new drugs as the main reason for ever increasing costs of drug development. Other reasons are mentioned, but litigation and settlements are not.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Raevmo:
The point is this is not a rich vs. poor scenario. A good deal of the money exchanged goes from non-poor to non-poor.
Again you miss the point. There is no point to a financial penalty when no wrong doing has occured. The poor are the ones hurt by this system. Are you able to figure out why that is so?
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
olegt:
You're jumping the gun. The price of drugs is a concern but it is a lessor concern than the other problem. The main problem with this system is it keeps some beneficial drugs from ever becoming accessible and retards the developmental process for others. Those mainly hurt are people in need of therapeutic drugs. The irony is there is no need for any of this when drug x benefits the vast majority of those who take it yet, its availability is problematic for a reason that has nothing to do with manufacturer culpability.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Again, Bradford, could you provide some specific examples of drugs that never made it to the market because of the US legal system? Thanks in advance.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Bradford:
Like you, Bush wants to get rid of your current tort laws. That's pretty conclusive evidence that on balance those laws must be doing some good.
Comment by Raevmo — April 6, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
http://www.sickoflawsuits.org/...
http://findarticles.com/p/arti...
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Raevmo:
You have a gift for hyperbole. Noone wants to get rid of a body of law that encompasses volumes of statutes, regulations and case law. Reform is the applicable word and many are in favor of it. Rich lawyers are generally opposed.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Bradford,
The PriceWaterhouseCoopers report (first link) does not discuss the contribution of litigation to the cost of drugs. It does so for the healthcare industry in general. So what's the cost of litigation in healthcare overall? 1%. Even if we completely eliminate medical trials, we'll save a mere 1%. I don't think it's worth it: sometimes there are legitimate reasons to sue your doctors or a pharmaceutical company.
The op-ed piece by Connell doesn't provide the cost figures, either. It gives a few specific examples of drugs pulled from the market because of litigation. Bendectin was pulled in 1983 thanks to bad science presented at trials. We now know that the drug doesn't cause drug defects.
It's interesting to note what Connell does not mention in her opinion piece. Bendectin was at the core of a 1993 court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which had a major positive impact on medical litigation. Not only Merrell Dow won the case, the court ruling also tightened the standards of scientific evidence at such trials, making it much harder to use junk science in court. Bendectin, by the way, is back on pharmacy shelves.
What does this case tell us? The court system is not perfect and yes, there have been cases that led to drugs being pulled from the market for bad reasons. However, the system is not nearly as bad as right-wingers portray it. Bad decisions are overturned and the system improves as time goes on. It takes time, but that's the nature of negotiations in general. It would have been much worse not to have recourse to a trial. Given the relatively small cost of litigation in the grand scheme of healthcare (the above mentioned 1%), it's a price worth paying.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Bradford:
Sorry, must disagree. Rumors of 'tort overload' are a load of hype bearing little resemblance to reality. Issues with the drug companies and the costs of their drugs are not about liability, it's about profits over quality. The FDA essentially quit regulating drugs (or anything else) quite awhile ago, letting Big Pharma do its own self-serving studies and giving them fast track approval. Much as they [and USDA] have done with GE crops, which corporations are often subsidiaries or offshoots of Big Pharma.
Big Pharma spends more on advertising than on R&D - you know, inventing 'conditions' and telling you during your nightly hypno-fest in front of prime time TV that you MUST HAVE this treatment. They've got most Americans on Prozac (or whatever valium of moment), their kids on Ritalin. Have you got Restless Leg Syndrome? Take so many drugs for all your imaginary conditions that you can't make love to your wife anymore? They've several 'cures' for that too, you're nobody unless your 7-year old has asked after the gazillionth Viagra commercial what ED is. Do the side effects of the drug you think you need to live (Ask Your Doctor!) with some imaginary ailment include death and permanent disability? Did you know that Robert Jarvic isn't a licensed cardiologist?
Drugs are and always have been a Big Moneymaker - white guys figured that out early on, we've fought innumerable wars for control of the spice. But if we're going to let the public decide what drugs they can have (while at the same time letting accountants and drug pushers practice medicine), then we've got no business spending ~$8 billion a year on the current disastrous Drug War. If someone finds marijuana to be a better anti-depressant than Prozac (or has any of the conditions marijuana has been demonstrated effective in treating the symptoms of), why does Merck or AstraZeneca or Pharmacia care? Why does the federal government care?
When a "blockbuster" drug like Vioxx turns out to cause death and permanent disability in a significant number of patients - and the pharmaceutical company and bought academics hid evidence of that from the FDA (which didn't care), they deserve to get slammed for costs, future losses for those harmed, and punitive damages to make them more careful and less dishonest next time. This isn't allergies. It's heart attacks and strokes.
Do you think that processed food manufacturers shouldn't be liable if they 'forgot' to label the peanuts or peanut oil in a product a conscientious Mom might purchase for her child who will die from eating anything with peanuts in it? Surely not!
Liability issues only get to court after the harm is done. That our system doesn't do its job to provide the proper (non-partisan) safety testing and regulatory oversight indicates that we need more in the way of proper (non-partisan) safety testing and regulatory oversight. One way to force that to happen is to impose punitive damages where they're warranted on these failings, so that both the companies and government will be forced to clean up their act. Taking away citizen's rights to tort claims doesn't do that, it just protects the padded pockets of the wrongdoers trading in human suffering to make a killing - literally.
You're right. Scads of it, all going into the pockets of people who don't mind committing fraud, scamming the public, or dealing drugs on a mass scale to people who don't need them. If you have a stroke from a medication you've been prescribed for restless legs or sleeplessness and are turned into an invalid for the rest of your life, your care is outrageously expensive and your contributions to the family's income are gone forever. Someone else's "Golden Parachute" or 401K profits are not more important than that if your family is the one that's suffering. If you lose your child to a negligent doctor, food processor or drug company you'll be even madder when they tell you the corporation is too important to be liable, I promise.
There are already processes for determination of merit, and penalties for bringing frivolous or wrongful suit. Most states prohibit punitive damages in medical malpractice even if it's criminal or outright fraud. The cost of getting new drugs to market has way more to do with not developing new drugs at all (but simply reformulating old drugs and getting a new patent), advertising straight to the public, buying public labs at public universities to do favorable trials and studies, and fronting armies of drug salesmen who know nothing about medicine to market drugs to doctors who know nothing about them except what the salesmen tell them.
The "Tort Crisis" is an urban legend propagated by multi-million dollar CEOs, corporate lawyers and government by corporation for corporation.
Comment by Joy — April 6, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Nothing I wrote should be interpreted as arguing for irresponsibility. The gist of it was the reverse. If a drug company develops a helpful drug (and there are many of those in addition to the ones we can do without) an unpredictable freak allergic reaction ought not dictate the fate of the drug for the 99% who benefit from it.
Many, many good physicians I'm personally familiar with would differ with that assessment. Frivilous lawsuits are part of the landscape and are driven by the other side of the big money coin- attorneys who not only bring the cases to court but make the laws themselves. Legislatures in the USA are dominated by that profession.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Bradford,
I've replied, but my comment is stuck in the moderation queue.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Thanks for the right wingers remark. I suspected that feeling was at the bottom of the objections posted to my initial comment. My position is not ideological. Not unless you and others think we have an ideal tort system which we do not. One of the problems with providing a detailed list of drugs that have either been delayed or kept from the market, for legal rather than scientific reasons, is the proprietary nature of the information itself. Insiders are in a position to know that liability is not strictly pegged to responsible behavior. If it were I would have no problem with our system. As it is I'm arguing for limited reform. I'm not an anarchist about these issues.
This is not an accurate portrayal of the problem. Many of my relatives are in the health care business- physicians, nurses, technicians… Physicians are being raped by health insurance premiums. When that happens the entire course of patient treatment is affected. Rather than risk a lawsuit tests and procedures are prescribed that might not otherwise occur. It is a hidden cost of our tort system that will not show up in your stats. The problem is a great deal more intricate than you allow.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Bradford:
I've actually sued for malpractice - several counts of which were criminal. I found in seeking to make that happen that 1 out of 100 patients who are actually harmed by their health care provider ever seeks attorney counsel. 1 out of 100 of those ever get past the review process to "intent to sue." 1 out of 100 of those ever gets to court. And 1 out of 100 of those ever gets monetary damages in excess of pennies on the dollar settlements. That is not a crisis, unless you're counting all those people being harmed by their health care providers and NOT suing.
You and I do disagree politically (this is nothing new). You've got a right to think people like me shouldn't have the right to redress great wrongs. I have a right to redress them. You'll have this in a country where we've both got rights.
Comment by Joy — April 6, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Joy:
This is begining to remind me of the ID debates.:mrgreen: Where does anyone get the impression that I want to shut off a capacity to sue? I don't. I wish to fine tune the process which includes making it easier to navigate the legal system once a suit has been filed. There are bad companies and bad physicians. They need to be held accountable. The problem is good companies and good physicians are penalized too. One of the worst aspects of our legal system is the unreasonable waiting time for many tort cases between time of filing an actual resolution. Reform. Does that sound right wingish?:smile:
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
BTW, has anyone noticed Mike labled this blog entry "humor?" You would not know it by the exchanges.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Bradford:
You'll have this too, since no system is perfect, and the risk gets spread. That's what insurance is for. It's kind of like automatic appeals for death penalty convictions. I'd rather an occasional killer be freed than for us to kill an innocent. You're right about negotiating the system (took us 7 years and 4 different judges to get our day in court). But all things considered, letting me work out my deep Mother's Fury through all that maze was probably better (but not necessarily more satisfying) than just shooting them with Grandpa's shotgun.
Which I threatened to do more than once. More level heads in my household won out, (no, I don't thank God for that since the penalty for shooting them would have had me clean out of jail well before the lawsuit was ever heard). But the victory wouldn't have been nearly so effective in the long run for re-tweaking the system. I'd have rather seen the people who killed my son on purpose crippled or in jail, but that's just me.
I just know there's no big litigation crisis. It's a scam, and I'm not willing to sacrifice any rights of redress because rich corporations and stockholders don't care what happens to me and mine so long as they get richer. That's a heck of a lot more left wingish than Hillary or Obama, so yeah. You're a lot more right wingish than me.
Comment by Joy — April 6, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
The scams depend on one's vantage point. I live in the nation's most populous state (per sq mi. and most lawyers per capita too) so premiums are no doubt more than they are in say North Dakota. 50,000- 70,000 annual premiums for physician health insurance is within the expected range. I've seen incompetence in this field but have also witnessed too many BS lawsuits.
At the supermarket where I shop the manager is plaugued with "I slipped" lawsuits. His floors are in good shape when I visit. It's easy to blame rich corporations but in reality greed includes dishonest individuals and law firms whose livelihood depends on lawsuits. Why is it the baby and the bathwater approach to torts in the USA? It's hard to believe this system is as good as it gets.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
April 6th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Bradford:
I presume you mean malpractice insurance. That's a scam too. The situation we had to do battle with in the 1990s was that the nation's largest malpractice insurer (out of Baton Rouge) offering cheap rates to lousy doctors went bankrupt after company principals left the country with $20 million in secured assets because there were so many pending suits against the lousy doctors. It was turned over to an ex-governor of LA and his son, who proceeded to loot another $10 million in assets (they went to prison for it). So it got turned over to government receivership, and the government decided it wouldn't hear any of the hundreds of pending lawsuits against any of those lousy doctors.
If there are BS malpractice suits in California or Texas (which is the biggest these days?), that's a problem with their state judicial system. Frivolous suits are not allowed in Florida (or Louisiana, or North Carolina, or Oklahoma, or any of a number of other states), there's an entire process for certifying if there's cause before it's ever allowed to go forward.
Take the basic health insurance scam, for instance. a.k.a. "Murder by Spreadsheet." That situation where accountants get to practice medicine instead of doctors. Or indentured servitude for people who can't change their employment because their kid has a condition that'll be "pre-existing" if they do, and nobody will cover it. Or self-employed people who must pay $1200 a month for insurance that only kicks in if they've spent at least $5,000 out of their own pockets for every member of the family. Or life insurance that simply refuses to pay no matter how dead the insuree is. When my brother died (wife and three kids, the youngest 5 months old) it took three law firms in two states to make them pay. The family ended up with 1/4 the amount of the policy because the lawyers cost that much. They were happy to get that, but let's face it - the guy was dead. He had life insurance. What's to argue about?
So now whenever someone calls me to try and sell me life insurance I always ask if it covers the cost of the lawyers it'll take to make them pay a claim. They don't bother me again after that.
The true horror stories are every bit as gnarly as the "frivolous suits" arguments. In my view, gnarlier because it's real people suffering real harm rather than some corporate suit not getting a $2 million commission that year by screwing people out of their rightful due. Sort of like the Fed bailing out an investment bank that went broke trading sub-prime mortgage loans with taxpayer money while doing nothing about the real people who are losing their real homes.
I don't believe this system is as good as it gets. Every time somebody pulls out that ancient canard that we have "the best health care system on the planet" I ask 'em if they've gotten sick or injured lately. They mostly haven't, have no idea what it's really like (or they have great government insurance that covers everything no questions asked, paid for by taxpayers). I believe we can do a whole lot better. I hate it that thousands of people die every year unnecessarily because it's so lousy. The sooner we fix it the better, IMO. So I simply don't buy the no-regulation, no-oversight, no-redress complaints of laissez-faire scammers and "trickle-down" con men.
Comment by Joy — April 6, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 4:20 am
Joy,
Well now, I think you may have just identified a problem with the system.
I'll be honest - I'm fairly economically conservative/libertarian. But I'm surprised how no one ever suggests nationalizing the legal industry. I mean, of everything that people say should be under state control, you'd think that would be the no brainer. And yet, it's never mentioned. Along the lines of how people will scream about price controls for everything - except education costs at universities. THOSE should be subsidized. Funny how that works.
As someone whose family works in the (mostly auto, home and life) insurance industry, I want to point out a few things without commenting on the greater issue.
* By law, any ambiguity in an insurance contract automatically favors the insured. The rationale is that, since the company is the only one writing the contract, the insured is afforded far more legal leeway in terms of interpreting it. I'm not saying that's wrong, just pointing out that that's the way it is.
* If you live in a no fault state, then any injury you have related to a vehicle is automatically covered by first-party medical coverage on the policy. Slam a door on your hand? Auto insurance covers it. Trip while getting off a bus? Auto insurance. Trip and hit your head on a car bumper? Auto insurance. Usually 5-10k minimum coverage, no deductible. And you can increase that very high.
* Want to know why so many people have horrible insurance coverage? One reason is they pay zero attention to what their policy covers when buying it. They want to know how much they have to pay, when it's due, and that's about it. Educating people and encouraging responsibility wouldn't solve the health care problems by a longshot, but I swear to you, it would improve things. People find out what their policy covers when they have a claim - and by then it's too late.
* Life insurance. Again, if the company isn't paying out, chances are they're either a disreputable outfit, or there's something more complicated in play. If you know you have cancer and buy a life policy without telling your insurer (and frankly, they're going to ask - the reputable companies will usually pay for a medical exam for you, free of charge), don't be surprised when your policy isn't honored. Or if your policy ran out, then you renewed while finding out you had a health problem during the uninsured period. If you're really concerned, some companies even offer riders where you can have some or most of your life insurance money paid out while you're still alive, if your case is terminal.
* Did you know that insurance rates are overseen by the state when it comes to auto insurance? I would be surprised to find out it's not the case with health insurance, but you never know. What this means is that a company doesn't let the market set their prices - the amount of profit they're able to get is literally determined by the state. Particular to auto, they even have to offer coverage at a reduced rate to people who are eligible to drive but have horrible driving records. It's the cost of doing business in the state. The greater point here is, if it costs thousands of dollars to get coverage, don't assume it's because the companies are a pack of thieving monsters. With auto particularly, their rates are under strict control.
* Again, specific to auto insurance, if the auto insurance company goes bankrupt, the state will pay out all claims it needs to. Insurers are forbidden from advertising this. Is it the case with health? May be. Not my field, but it's worth considering.
The greater point is that when it comes to insurance costs, it's not just the market setting the price - a lot of this is already under the control of the state as is. Certainly with auto, likely with health, though I can be corrected on that point. And I'm not convinced involving the government will make things better. Go find out what happened to the people who died while working on the Hoover Dam. Hey, have a look at that story alone about the government receivership.
But I can say that step one should be the hardest thing - education. Have people learn about what the policies they have available actually cover. Whenever I hear about someone whose insurance company didn't cover their losses, 'I didn't know my policy didn't cover that' vastly outnumbers 'I couldn't afford the coverage I needed'. And I'd be willing to bed the former typically mean 'I didn't care, I wanted the cheapest coverage' is more accurate many times.
Comment by nullasalus — April 7, 2008 @ 4:20 am
April 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am
nullasallus:
Excellent point. There has been an undercurrent theme that rich corporations are screwing the poor. Nothing new. Let's be explicit. Rich corporations do not include corporations in the legal business. They get a pass. Check the professional affiliation of members of Congress and the reason becomes obvious. The percentage is lawyers is grossly overrepresented. Incidentally, manufacturers of medicinal products tend to employ researchers. Normally the defenders of science crowd weighs in whenever a factor affecting research is identified. But let's be honest about the pretty speeches we are hearing this election year. They hide the ugly fact that Congress has gotten into the business of nepotism in a big way. Arranging lobbyist jobs for one's spouse and children is in vogue. That's the real new politics.
Comment by Bradford — April 7, 2008 @ 6:20 am
April 7th, 2008 at 11:06 am
nullasalus:
On the average most people get their health insurance from their employer. The employer buys the range of policies, the workers get whatever they can afford from those offerings. Not only is this increasingly expensive for the workers (eating greater and greater percentages of income every year), it's a significant handicapping of American business in the world trade markets where they must compete with companies who don't have to manage health insurance and don't have the extra production costs associated with paying for worker coverage directly or paying the workers enough to get coverage. That's a detriment to business on top of the detriment to workers' freedom (the indentured servitude mentioned if someone in their family needs health care).
I figure stitching cuts, setting bones, doing surgery and treating illnesses is basic health care. Tens of millions of Americans don't have that, and that is a large shame in the modern world.
Yeah. The 'complication' is usually the insurance company's bottom line. When Mom died her policies paid 50¢ on the dollar of what she purchased after working most of her adult life for Blue Cross Blue Shield because the companies had been bundled into securities resold so many times (each time involving profit-taking by the thieves) they weren't worth face value - sort of like what's happened to people's home loans. They told us, though I didn't believe a word of it. Standard operating procedure for crooks and liars. We could have lawyered-up, but that would have diminished the return even more (and of course they knew it, that's how this can be SOP).
Yeah, lawyers cost as much as doctors. You'll have this when there are privileged professional classes whose extensive education and training as well as the services they offer are necessary by the natural course of life and the system itself. The Insurance Commissioner in my state is wholly owned by the insurers, just as the FDA is wholly owned by Big Pharma and its gene-splicing subsidiaries.
That said, doctors and lawyers are highly regulated professions, both by government and by their own professional oversight agencies. I don't have a problem with them making a good living for the work they do - that's cost, not profit.
Did you know that the moment you drive that new $60,000 SUV off the lot it's worth at least $10,000 less than you just paid for it? In my last day job in customer service we used to get hundreds of calls a day from people who were shocked to find that their "full coverage" insurance didn't come anywhere close to the actual cost of replacing the vehicle. We also fielded tons of calls from people who found that the medical riders only applied to the other guy, not to their own injuries. I've lived in a lot of states, but obviously not in yours. In the last 6 states I've lived it's your regular health insurer that covers auto accident injuries (or not). Most auto policies with medical riders only cover the other guy.
Insurance is a pretty good idea "in theory." In practice, it's a racket. Which is why the AG of New York and two of the largest public hospitals in the NYC area have filed RICO suits against the nation's largest health insurance company and its many crooked subsidiaries.
Maybe you should go look at what happened when Physician's Mutual was thrown into receivership due to crooks and thieves. Or you could just go here to get some actual facts and figures on the fake "crisis" being peddled.
Comment by Joy — April 7, 2008 @ 11:06 am
April 7th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Hi Nullasus,
You wrote…
Sorry, but this dog just doesn't hunt in the day-to-day operations of health insurance. First of all, like Joy said, most insurance comes from employers. Asking your typical HR person about what is and isn't covered is bad enough when you have a specific and pressing need. Trying to get a full and detailed explanation beforehand would, and is, seen as a waste of time (of course, that is never the official company policy).
The day-to-day operations show this all to be a bureaucratic shell game. Insurance companies are constantly changing CPT code applicability. It is a merry-go-round with office administrators trying to figure out which codes the insurance companies are going to accept today.
The insured don't stand a chance. For example, my wife had scheduled carpel-tunnel surgery done on both wrists one and a time. The same procedure was performed by the same doctor. The first one was covered, the second one wasn't. The reason? The insurer changed which CPT code was applicable in the delay between the two procedures.
We, the "educated" insured, tried to follow up on this and was told by the bureaucratic professionals, including our employer's HR point of contact to wait and see if it works itself out. It worked itself out, alright, the bill ended up at a collection agency which could care less whether or not our policy was supposed to cover the procedure.
Nullasus, have you noticed how many lawsuits are denied because the courts ruled the plaintiffs filed too late? Do you think that is a coincidence?
Sorry, but it is my opinion the insurance companies and the medical community are feeling too little pain for their malpractice, instead of too much. They think that can get away with hiding the problems behind red-tape instead of doing their job straight up.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 7, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Bradford:
Yes, let's be explicit: the USA has become a de facto fascist state, where the corporations call the shots, screwing the poor and enriching the rich, mostly thanks to a GOP that mobilizes the nutty religious fundamentalists with their message of intolerance and hate.
How am I doing?
Comment by Raevmo — April 7, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Joy,
True enough. But all I've said here is that people should learn more about their policies. If they get it through their workplace, the same holds. I'm not saying things aren't broken - I'm saying 'learning about what policies do and cover before there's a claim' is a necessary step. I don't care if their policy comes from the government, or God - sit down and read it. It can only help.
The blue book value of a vehicle isn't determined by the insurance company, so it's hard to blame them for that. No, you're not going to get 60k for the vehicle that cost you 60k a couple months ago. They're going to pay you the (typically, with the major reputable companies) the blue book value. What do you do if you total a 60k car that's now worth 50k because it's a couple months old? You go to a used car dealership and look for an equivalent car.
And one piece of advice about auto insurance - if you can afford it, always get full tort. Always.
All I did was kick in some information from a vantage point outside of the health insurance industry, giving an idea of how insurance works in other situations. I'm skeptical of the typically-touted solutions to the problems, but I'm not about to offer my advice on it all - I just said more people should read their policies before they have to use them.
TP,
'When you have a specific and pressing need' is too late - I've said as much. Beforehand, a waste of time? Ha. Ha ha ha.
Again: Go read up on your insurance coverage, whatever the source. I know people have busy lives, but it would do everyone a lot of good. It's not going to solve the problems completely, or even largely, but it would certainly help.
Maybe they are - I haven't argued otherwise. Maybe the health insurance companies change their procedures constantly as a cost-saving method - I think there's always a way to get the necessary information, but I'm also willing to admit that 'changing instructions constantly' would be a deplorable method of avoiding payouts, and should be restricted if it's happening.
Raevmo,
Raevmo, have you tried looking over your insurance policy? If your insurance company is forcing you to take reduced-strength meds for your mental condition, I'd consider filing a lawsuit. Be sure to log posts like these, they can probably be presented as evidence.
Comment by nullasalus — April 7, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Nullasalus:
Actually, I haven't been on any medication for at least five years. Last time was some antibiotics against a hawk-inflicted wound on my thumb. Insurance companies love me. But thanks for your concern.
Comment by Raevmo — April 7, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
From the New York Times today, Drug Makers Near Old Goal: A Legal Shield
Kicking everything over to the bad old "Sovereign Immunity" scam, the Bush administration hopes to once again protect its corporate clients from their own incompetence and fraudulent "research"…
Blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, death. These are not allergic reactions, they are entirely predictable reactions in a certain percentage of women exposed to half again the safe level of estrogen allowed by FDA itself. All on lies the pharmacorp told them when seeking approval of the patch. Why did they think their patch was so great? Why, because it exposed women to LESS estrogen than birth control pills, of course! A blatant and dangerous lie. The problems were apparent in early pre-approval clinical testing. Worse, it was marketed to physicians as delivering a mere 20 micrograms every 24 hours, a full 40% under what J&J knew it actually delivered.
The lawsuits are what led to discovery of the fraud and lies, so J&J can only hope they are let off the hook on the pre-emption technicality.
The drug companies know that FDA doesn't have the funding or the manpower to police them, and they don't care who they hurt or kill in their quest for Almighty Dollar. Bush's FDA is firmly in the companys' pockets…
The FDA is worried that people might not take Big Pharma's deadly drugs? Their job is to protect the public, not to push drugs for Big Pharma. It's a racket, the government's either in on it or being defrauded by the companies (the story changes regularly), and everyone's okay with that? News flash: a lot of us aren't okay with that. The FDA doesn't actually regulate worthless, harmful or deadly drugs. Hell, it doesn't even have the power to order recalls of ANY drugs or e.coli tainted foods!
So why should greedy corporations get a free ride for negligent homicide and deliberately crippling innocent people for money? That makes no sense at all.
Comment by Joy — April 7, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Evidently still alive; not posting from a jail, gulag, or concentration camp; with enough finances to afford a computer and an internet connection in addition to the basic necessities of life; and possessing enough free time to comment on a blog with which you fundamentally disagree and have yet to be reported to the GOP secret police roaming the streets.
You know, life in the typical de facto fascist state.
Edit: This must be that alternate universe fascism I keep hearing about. I think nearly half of America and practically all of Western Europe must trudge through that wormhole on a daily basis.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 7, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
angry fat man:
Nope. I'm not in the USA. Universal health care here, high quality at low cost. The benefit of not selling out (yet) to the corporations. You have to wonder why Americans pay twice as much per capita for health care and get worse results.
Comment by Raevmo — April 7, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I am curious as to your situation. Most people (because most people get their insurance through their employer) have an HR person as their point of contact for medical insurance needs. When something unusual comes up, we have all been programmed to make sure you get approval (either directly, or through your primary care physician) BEFOREHAND, because if you don't, regardless of whether you would have been covered, the insurance company will deny your claim because the proper hoop jumping wasn't adhered to.
Now you need to do this weeks or even months beforehand, because… well… because you have to. It appears that even the experts can't tell you quickly whether or not you are covered without submitting the question/request to the waiting hands of the bueraucrats.
Do you know what CPT and HCPCS codes are?
Do you understand what Joy was talking about when she mentioned "Murder by Spreadsheet" Accountants doing their job, which ISN'T practicing medicine, save money by adding extra layers of bureaucracy; an additional approval cycle here, outsourced services there, etc. Generally speaking, a delay in paying expenses adds to the bottom line ("cost of money" MBA 101). In the insurance racket, delayed payments can be even more lucrative. Delaying a payment can sometimes eliminate the need for the payment because the patient dies.
The problem is that it SHOULDN'T be hard for people to know what is covered or not, but it is. I suggest that is intentional. Do you think the fault lies with the insured? Is it possible that the encouragement of that perception might be intentional too?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 7, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
TP,
The experts? Who, HR? The agent/secretary you get if you call up and ask a question? The idea that 'experts' are always needed when it comes to these things is part of the problem. At the very least, an attempt should be made. Ask your questions directly, and after you've read the policy. If it's over your head, well, it's over your head. But I think far too often people decide it will be over their head before making the personal attempt.
I'm not saying 'if you get screwed by a company it's your fault for not knowing all the ins and outs of law'. I'm saying people should, as a matter of course, strive to understand the contracts that affect them so directly. I've dealt with one too many people in auto insurance who thinks 'uninsured motorist coverage' means 'I can let my uninsured friend drive my car'. That attitude does not help things.
I understand it. I'm being very careful with commenting here, because I'm not all that interested in advocating a particular solution (other than a general dislike of the legal industry, or the fact that an industry has been made out of law.) But keep in mind that many - perhaps not here - tend to argue that the best way to solve these problems ('inventive' accounting measures, and added bureaucracy) is by turning the process over to full government authority and funding. I'm skeptical.
I'm not saying the fault lies anywhere - I'm not an expert in health insurance, I'd have to read up on it vastly more to take a firm stance. If I am advocating anything here in particular, it is a single idea - people should make an effort to read and understand their policies firsthand. I said outright, if the companies are attempting complicate this as a way to screw people out of money by misinformation, that's deplorable and should be addressed. Likewise, if people aren't reading or getting information on their policies until they need a claim, that should change.
Comment by nullasalus — April 7, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Raevmo:
As expected for a pampered European with little experience in life. You wouldn't last a week in a real Gulag.
Comment by Bradford — April 7, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
April 7th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
nullasalus:
Actually, the companies are doing a lot worse than merely spreading misinformation, and it has gotten so bad that our actual medical infrastructure and training system is in danger of collapse because nobody's getting paid (except by the government, which is getting taken to the cleaners by racketeers). I suppose someone might suspect there's a problem when there's no hospitals. It honestly shouldn't have to get that bad, but if the whole ugly futures market in human suffering doesn't get cut off at the knees, it will. Profiting from the suffering of others is hardly a Christian virtue, you know.
There are lots and lots of pyramid investment scams out there for bored rich people to lose their shirts on (and then get bailed out by taxpayers), lots of sound investments regular people with 401K's and investment portfolios can bank on. They don't have to profit from other people's suffering. There's just no good reason to deny health care to entire classes of citizens because they're poor (or not poor enough) or ethnic or young or sick or not very smart/sophisticated. There *are* good reasons to provide access to everyone - it's a genuine public health issue in this day and age. Basic health care should be a right, not an IQ test.
Most companies have presentations every year to sell the employees on this year's offerings (they change quite often). Insurance reps or the HR go-between explains the details and answers questions. This does not make the insurers honest or the individual employees experts in contract law or gratuitous hoop-jumping.
I cannot understand this blaming of the legal system for what's wrong with the health care system. Lawyers don't get involved until someone's been seriously harmed or killed - which is when I am the most thankful that we *have* a legal system and lawyers. We can't fix what's wrong by denying there's anything wrong. It won't be fixed by blaming the victims either, and it sure as hell won't get fixed by blaming justice for injustice.
Comment by Joy — April 7, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
April 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Joy,
I'm not saying we should get rid of the legal system, of course. I said I'm not a fan of the very idea that there is a legal industry at all - if anything should be under the near-direct auspices of the state, that seems to be it. But that exchange alone illustrates part of the problem - if so much legal work has to get done (or lawyers are able to charge so high unwarrantedly) as to claim the lion's share of a legal settlement, something seems to be wrong.
That 'murder by spreadsheet' you talk about? If it happens - and sure, I'll grant it is - it's done with the advising and oversight of lawyers. When a company decides to do something that's visibly unethical but legally justifiable, they didn't ask the guy in accounting how to do it - they went to their lawyers. When you're grateful for lawyers, it's because they're able to go into court and defeat other lawyers.
Lawyers are involved every step of the way. They aren't retained only when it's time to go in front of a judge. Companies don't 'go hire a lawyer' when they're in trouble - they typically have a legal department that works with them throughout the life of their company. Insurance contracts are drawn up and changed by - you guessed it - lawyers.
Comment by nullasalus — April 8, 2008 @ 12:00 am
April 8th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Joy:
I don't understand oversimplifications that put the good guys neatly on one side and the bad ones on the other. Lawyers get involved whenever they sense an opportunity to make money. In that sense they are no different from manufacturers or medical institutions. Tort law firms are not in business to be fair. They are there to promote the interests of their clients and make a lucrative living in the process. Sometimes this means redressing wrongs. Other times it means suing for questionable "injuries." The term ambulance chaser came about for good reason. All professions have their shady practitioners and lawyers are no exception.
Initial comments I posted were intended to point out that lawsuits have been initiated based on allergic reactions to drugs that adversely impact a very small percentage of people while benefiting many. Allergic reactions proceed quickly, can be induced by a tiny amount of allergen and are not always predictable. When a judgement is rendered against a company that manufactures a drug, effectively benefiting many, due to a rare and unpredictable reaction, we witness neither justice nor sound health policy. The injured party in such cases should have redress through funding by the society at large. Spread the cost for these freak occurences to the broader society. It is not negligence to have an effective product do the inevitable- adversely impact some human in a vast gene pool.
The focus is narrow and not meant to exclude suits directed at real negligence or fraud. Justice means fixing culpability to those who merit it.
Comment by Bradford — April 8, 2008 @ 12:16 am
April 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
nullasalus:
Lawyers are usually smart people who spend a lot to go to grad school - like scientists and physicians and other professional classes - and may use their skills to do any number of jobs for (and against) society. Many become lawmakers, as Bradford noted, because their specialty is law, that's the cushiest and best paying job that has the most ego-strokes. Lawyers and politicians as an overlapping class are a necessary evil in a society governed by laws and regulations - Scribes and Pharisees. The paid professional liars honest and dishonest people alike hire for the skill, the clout, the hard-working underlings that can get things done that regular people can't do for themselves and/or wouldn't do because it's so darned sleazy.
Sharks. Nobody likes them. But unlike Shakespeare, I wouldn't kill them all as the first rule of revolution. I might send them all into exile, though. Lawyers - good or bad - didn't invent bad doctors or greedy people in general. The answer to our current system of institutional malpractice and medical rationing plus exclusion isn't to get rid of law and lawyers.
Bradford:
Yeah. Sort of like Monsanto genetically engineering the staple food supply so they can own the seeds in perpetuity and make humanity pay them directly for the privilege of being able to live. Unfortunately, their GE soy came out with some 'unexpected' extra large proteins and misfolded others that were never reported to the FDA for approval. When Britain finally bowed down to their lawyers and opened their markets to foods containing GE soy, the incidence of child allergy to soy doubled in only a single year. Soy is in everything (including infant formula). Monsanto is not liable for PCBs in the water supply, death, injuries or deformities from agent orange, or any possible nasty effect of genetic malpractice if the world gets poisoned by their corn, soy, wheat, rice or rBGH milk. It is good to have a lot of lawyers and friends in high places if you plan to rule the world, n'est ce pas?
The broader society doesn't care about sick or injured people. If they did, we'd have universal health care. That's not what we have, and it's not looking much like we'll ever get it. I can understand hating lawyers - everybody does. But to me this misfocus of blame for a very serious problem with our social fabric is just a distraction. Nobody argues that we should do away with medicine because some doctors are bad. Nobody argues that we should get rid of social workers because some are mean and nasty. I never see people argue that we should throw orphans out on the streets because some orphanages are run by sleazebags. And I sure don't see anybody arguing that we should regulate the heck out of speculative investment scams instead of bail out the gamblers from the public trough when they go broke.
But we DO see people argue that we should not feed the poor [food stamps] because some poor people cheat or buy the wrong things. And we DO see people argue that we shouldn't have health care for all because lawyers are rich crooks. It still makes zero sense to me.
Comment by Joy — April 8, 2008 @ 10:28 am
April 8th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Joy,
As one of the millions of tax payers in the broader society that DOES care, I take exception to this pejorative generalization.
My mom in law needed a heart valve. She got one. Works great. Didn't pay a penny. And she's not even a citizen.
Same with my daughter. She has autism, the state pays for all her health care.
Any given day in my city you can find clinics giving free care to non-citizens and various people in need. (I was once one of them) All financed by yours truly (and millions like me).
Anybody in this country who isn't getting free health care either is not trying, or can afford to buy it themselves.
Comment by chunkdz — April 8, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
April 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Joy,
I've never said we should get rid of them. I said that insofar as there is a legal industry, I think there is a problem. The system as it exists certainly directly contributes to the problems. Besides - there is no way to deal with any system of institutional malpractice from the standpoint of the government other than to alter law. Hopefully we won't cripple medical research and other goods with whatever moves are made, if any.
Comment by nullasalus — April 8, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
April 9th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
What country do you live in? And what kind of population and GDP growth do you have? I would hazard that the generation following you will not fare as well.
Contrary to what you may think, the good old USA does have quite a bit of government funded public health "insurance" for a fair number of our citizens. (The elderly.) It's called Medicare. And it's a financial cancer that going to bring us down in a couple of decades even without a general singler payer system unless taxes are raised astronomically, or we somehow have a new economic revolution, or we kill off the old folks.
Socialism has its price. I'm afraid most Americans will probably balk at more socialized medicine if they realize what it's going to cost. Free market solutions are the answer, by and large, IMO.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 9, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
April 9th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
kornbelt:
Yeah. God forbid we'd cover basic health care here in the US when it only costs us (and our children and grandchildren) $9 billion a month to destroy lives in Iraq instead.
[slaps forehead] Oy!
Comment by Joy — April 9, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
April 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
I think it's more complicated than that, although in hindsight I think it was a big mistake. At any rate, the trouble with "basic" is that it usually creeps up over the years, like Social Security and income taxes. Just Medicare alone is going to swallow up a collosal chunk of the federal budget within 20 years, and that's just for the seniors. I suppose if you're willing to shell out 90%+ of your income in taxes of one form or another it might be a good idea. But I think it's extreme, and free market solutions are a much better idea. The insurance companies have strenuously fought sensible free market reforms. Instead of jumping into the socialistic cauldron, I think the free market solutions should be attempted. I'm probably wishing in vain, however.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 9, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
kornbelt:
Netherlands. We're not doing too bad, thank you very much, having at the moment a higher per capita GDP and GDP growth rate than the USA. Population growth probably below USA levels, but still positive thanks to immigration. Did I mention that we have much more paid holiday and yet higher productivity? All that despite our crippling socialized medicine, which is actually much cheaper than what the USA pays per capita, and we still manage to have a much healthier population. If I didn't know better, I'd say we are God's country.
Spoken like a true ideologue. The failed free market experiment in USA health care speaks volumes.
Comment by Raevmo — April 10, 2008 @ 11:48 am
April 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Raevmo
Not quite.
Yes, institutionalized euthanasia is very economical. Much cheaper to kill 'em off. Silly Americans always trying to heal folks…
Call us when you figure out how to make a Space Shuttle. We've got plenty of tulips, thank you.
God is a heroin addict??
Comment by chunkdz — April 10, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Raevmo:
chunkdz: not quite
I wrote "at the moment". Your data are from 2007. In the mean time the dollar has tanked with respect to the Euro and now we have higher per capita GDP measured in $US. We do our shopping in NYC now during the weekend. Doesn't take much to make up for the air fare.
Except when they are poor folks. I'm sure Jesus would approve of that. Funny that in the land of the free, one doesn't have the freedom to choose one's own time of death. To die while you still have a modicum of dignity left.
Per capita drug abuse (including heroine) is far higher in the USA, and so are drug-related deaths. Dream on.
Comment by Raevmo — April 10, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Ah yes, another expert who gets his expertise not from actual observation and experience but from what others with vested interests tell him. No wonder you're a Darwinian advocate.
Dr. Leo Alexander would like to have a word with you about fascism, by the way. The real kind, not the alternate universe kind where the victims walk the streets, say whatever they want about the supposedly fascist government, and openly call for the death of the so-called dictator, all with no repercussions.
Of course in the alternate universe, I'm an expert on the Netherlands, and I shall note that they have a wonderfully non-fascist government that provides much better medical care for its citizens than the U.S., cares more for the nation's children and shows a compassion for the poor completely unheard of in that fascist America.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 10, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
chunkdz, angryfatman, do you really think a valid defense to a charge of fascism is that others are even more fascist? The Netherlands is a technologically advanced and democratic society. Holland suffered greatly under fascist occupation during WWII, until finally liberated by the Canadians.
The problem with the current situation is that U.S. exercise of power beyond their borders is inherently undemocratic and breeds resentment.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Zachriel:
I like the Netherlands but think highly of the USA as well. I believe Raevmo introduced the term fascist into the thread which has the effect of shutting down any meaningful dialog.
There is more to this. Excercising power in post war Europe made the present conditions there possible. Ditto Japan and South Korea. Afghanistan was not of our choosing. There are overreaches but other countries have responsibilities too, like for example, ensuring that Rwandas, Biafras and Cambodias do not occur. If American power is resented then let some of the other countries step up and do some of the hard things needed to promote freedom and prosperity in the third world. It's just so easy to complain.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Only after you introduced the subject of "screwing the poor", Bradford.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I used to work for a man from the Netherlands. His take on it was that you're well taken care of, but you don't have much money of your own left. He likes the US way of life a lot better. He moved to south Florida, and made a great life for himself. I guess he'd rather have control over his own money than cradle to grave socialism. I don't blame him.
If by ideologue you mean someone that prefers liberty to socialism, then sure. Color me guilty. At any rate, the US health care system has gotten more expensive, but it has hardly "failed." The poor have medicaid, virtually "free" E.R. and various private programs, the elderly have medicare, the rich can afford it, and insurance is rather expensive for the middle class, but would socialized medicine be cheaper over all? We need insurance reform here, no doubt about it. But I wouldn't want your system. To each his own.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 10, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
April 10th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I believe Raevmo introduced the term fascist into the thread"¦
Might as well supply the context:
Excellent point. There has been an undercurrent theme that rich corporations are screwing the poor. Nothing new. Let's be explicit. Rich corporations do not include corporations in the legal business. They get a pass. Check the professional affiliation of members of Congress and the reason becomes obvious.
At times the poor do get screwed. Rich corporations are not necessarily manufacturers. Sometimes they are corporate law firms. The biggest firm in the world goes by the nickname Uncle Sam.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
April 11th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Bradford:
Not in this thread.
Here's something from today's Krugman column in the NYT:
Funny how some get all worked up about protecting unborn life, but don't give a damn about it once it's ex-uterus.
The choice is European-style "socialized medicine" or US-style "social darwinism". It's a no-brainer.
Comment by Raevmo — April 11, 2008 @ 9:19 am
April 11th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Off-topicIf by ideologue you mean someone who poses false dichotomies, then sure. The Netherlands is a open economy, and the home to a wide variety of businesses, both large and small. Nearly all modern economies offer some form of universal health care and remain competitive.