The extra cost of malpractice lawsuits accounts for some of the difference in health spending in the two countries. In Canada the total cost of settlements, legal fees, and insurance comes to $4 per person each year, but in the United States it is $16.[67] Average payouts to American plaintiffs were $265,103, while payouts to Canadian plaintiffs were somewhat higher, averaging $309,417.[68] However, malpractice suits are far more common in the U.S., with 350% more suits filed each year per person. [67] While malpractice costs are significantly higher in the U.S., they make up only a small proportion of total medical spending. The total cost of defending and settling malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. in 2001 was approximately $6.5bn, or 0.46% of total health spending.[69] Critics say that defensive medicine consumes up to 9% of American healthcare expenses.[70][71] In the same year in Canada, the total burden of malpractice suits was $237 million, or 0.27% of total health spending.[67]
emphasis mine...but i think the biggest difference is what's bolded.
wow, you know the facts......thank you so much because I got a bit lost at the number facts but are you kind of agreeing that some of our expense is wasted on malpractice? Granted it may not at all account for all of it but it does sound like it accounts for a lot of it. Right? Or did I misunderstand?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
wow, you know the facts......thank you so much because I got a bit lost at the number facts but are you kind of agreeing that some of our expense is wasted on malpractice? Granted it may not at all account for all of it but it does sound like it accounts for a lot of it. Right? Or did I misunderstand?
i agree that malpractice ins does add some to our cost of healthcare. There is money to be made from healthcare both in it (physicians, allied health providers) and protecting / prosecuting it (attorneys). As long as there is money to be made from suing over an accident, health care issue, the premiums will be high as will the cost of health care. Most suits don't go to trial though. Most physicians choose to settle out of court for X amount of money b/c it would be cheaper and their name isn't run through the mud. I took a bioethics class (with a JD/ PhD) and one of the topics we covered was this. Most lawyers will just call up a doctor and say patient "x" is hurting b/c of a procdure; we're going to sue you but we're willing to settle out of court for "y" amount of money. The doc would be a fool to not write the check if there is any hint that he could be help responsible in a court of law and the cost from going to court, hiring a lawyer for the case, punitive damages would be much greater than the amount the injured party is willing to take. The cost to the physician has to get passed along to someone, and it's often the consumer in businesses. I'm not sure if they'd be nec more protected, but my guess is if we went universal healthcare the gov't would set limits on all sorts of damages and would hopefully guard the physician a little better.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It could be better but it is not as bad as some people make it out to be. If you got to a clinic you can some times wait up to an hour (maybe 2) if you don't have an appointment (although if it is not busy you won't have to wait at all). If you go to an ER for something life threatening typically I don't think you have to wait, but you will if they determine your injury is non-life threatening and it is busy. There is lots of talk about how a large portion of the population doesn't have a regular family doctor. Personally I don't have a family doctor, not because of any kind of shortage, but because I am in good health, and am too lazy to find one, since the odd time I need a doctor I am fine with a clinic. So I think those figures are exaggerated.
There is also a lot of talk about long wait time for optional surgery. Like if you need shoulder or hip surgery because of an injury you sometimes have to wait quite awhile. This is unfortunate (especially with our aging population) but it more due to our small population and not enough medical schools. A similar problem is that people that don’t live in major cities sometimes have trouble getting doctors to live in their towns. The governments are trying to address this, I know new medical schools are opening up, including some away from major urban areas, to increase the number of doctors as well as the number in outlying areas.
thanks for this insight. as i was watching the movie, i kept asking myself, there has to be something bad with the process. albiet, i do not think the above situation is bad, at all.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
i agree that malpractice ins does add some to our cost of healthcare. There is money to be made from healthcare both in it (physicians, allied health providers) and protecting / prosecuting it (attorneys). As long as there is money to be made from suing over an accident, health care issue, the premiums will be high as will the cost of health care. Most suits don't go to trial though. Most physicians choose to settle out of court for X amount of money b/c it would be cheaper and their name isn't run through the mud. I took a bioethics class (with a JD/ PhD) and one of the topics we covered was this. Most lawyers will just call up a doctor and say patient "x" is hurting b/c of a procdure; we're going to sue you but we're willing to settle out of court for "y" amount of money. The doc would be a fool to not write the check if there is any hint that he could be help responsible in a court of law and the cost from going to court, hiring a lawyer for the case, punitive damages would be much greater than the amount the injured party is willing to take. The cost to the physician has to get passed along to someone, and it's often the consumer in businesses. I'm not sure if they'd be nec more protected, but my guess is if we went universal healthcare the gov't would set limits on all sorts of damages and would hopefully guard the physician a little better.
is it hard to sue though? I have seen some people who have thought they were in the right about a dr not doing their job and yet it seemed pretty hard to prove unless it is really obvious. Is it true? It seems like the savvy people who kind of know how to work the system or their lawyers, know what to do to get the money. Am I misinformed? you seem like you know better about the real facts of this.
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
thanks for this insight. as i was watching the movie, i kept asking myself, there has to be something bad with the process. albiet, i do not think the above situation is bad, at all.
There is lots of room for improvement, but I think if we had a US level tax base, population density and number of medical schools, we would be laughing. I mean I think there are under 20 Canadian medical schools.
is it hard to sue though? I have seen some people who have thought they were in the right about a dr not doing their job and yet it seemed pretty hard to prove unless it is really obvious. Is it true? It seems like the savvy people who kind of know how to work the system or their lawyers, know what to do to get the money. Am I misinformed? you seem like you know better about the real facts of this.
it's easy to sue, harder to win, in a court of law. It gets into proving negligence and that's not always easy. But look at the life of a physician / surgeon. YOu see 30-40 (often times more) patients a day (work 6am-7pm at times, operate 2-5 days a week, you're on call...often times it's easier to write the checks on the questionable cases than invest the time to prove your innocence. If you have a claim against you you, even if you're not guilty, you still have to take time off to talk to a lawyer, give depositions etc... Those are days you aren't able to perform surgery or see patients thus loss of revenues and you incur expenses. if you can bring in 2-3K a day and it costs a couple thousand for your lawyer that's about 5K that you've lost...I'd write the check for even more than that so I'm not stressed about the time involved and if the suing lawyer gets you before the claim is filed...it doesn't count against your record, I think. Also, since litigation is used physicians are doing a lot of cover your ass medicine...order a lot of tests, b/c if you don't order a test and find something you could be sued for not ordering it and not finding it (more cost to ins company and to consumers). The saavy people will always figure out how to get their money...there are bad doctors who need to be punished but there are also lawyers and patients who need to be reigned in as well. We expect perfection from physicians but it's not realistic. The easiest way to avoid lawsuits has been shown to say, I'm sorry and how can I make it right. A majority of times that is all people want.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I oppose universal health care because Michael Moore is for it.
And yes, I am being sarcastic. But only kind of.
Please elaborate.
Steve
11/18/97 Oakland
07/13/98 Los Angeles
07/14/98 Los Angeles
10/31/99 Bridge School
10/28/00 San Bernardino
10/31/00 Mountain View
10/21/01 Bridge School
06/01/03 Mountain View
07/15/06 SF I
07/16/06 SF II
07/18/06 SF III
10/21/06 Bridge School
04/07/08 Berkeley
04/08/08 Berkeley
If Michael Moore is for something, it's a good sign I should probably be against it. He and I are further apart ideologically than Newt Gingrich and Vladimir Lenin.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I may be way off the mark, but please discuss my idea (or at least humour me).
A lot of people talk about the fact that the US is one of the richest nations on earth, yet the only industrialised nation without universal healthcare. Do you think the US would be one of the richest industrialised nations still if they'd implimented (sp) universal healthcare in '45 or so (along with Canada, the UK, Europe, Aus, NZ) or that the lower taxes because of the decision against it help spur the economy?
Great movie. I've always felt that there is something seriously wrong with a health care system that has care on one end and profits on the other.
Anyways. After seeing the film, I want to ask all opponents of universal health care why they feel the way they do. To me, we are the most powerful nation in the world, what is so hard about taking care of our own people? Well, I've said it many other time before so I'll say it again: seems like you have to be either ignorant ("everyone gets health insurance with their jobs!") or just a heartless prick ("I have health insurance, thats all that matters") to oppose a universal health care plan.
Whats the point if most people cannot afford it anyway?
Steve
11/18/97 Oakland
07/13/98 Los Angeles
07/14/98 Los Angeles
10/31/99 Bridge School
10/28/00 San Bernardino
10/31/00 Mountain View
10/21/01 Bridge School
06/01/03 Mountain View
07/15/06 SF I
07/16/06 SF II
07/18/06 SF III
10/21/06 Bridge School
04/07/08 Berkeley
04/08/08 Berkeley
It's in the interest of health insurance for healthcare costs to be high so that people HAVE to have health insurance. It is a monopoly and it eliminates competition for prices. Furthermore, we're all still paying for our healthcare anyway AND the salaries and operating costs of the insurance industry. Think about it....insurance companies couldn't exist if they weren't making money....and who are they making money from.....US!
I say eliminate health insurance for everything but catastrophic cases and let the competition keep prices lower. Furthermore, employers could pay higher salaries if they weren't spending so much on insurance (I know some of you will say they won't pay more, but that's a childish view, IMO)
Universal Healthcare is just a WORSE form of what we already have. It eliminates the competition and again we'd still all be paying for it. Furthermore, we'd be relying on the worst money managing entity of all time - the GOVERNMENT - to administer it.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They say when someone is having a heart attack the very first signs present similar to a feeling indigestion or sometimes like cold symptoms. They also say the faster you get to a hospital the better your chance of survival. Now I would hate to live somewhere where if I was having the symptoms that might be a heart attack, one of the considerations to make was whether or not I can afford the doctors bill.
Great movie. I've always felt that there is something seriously wrong with a health care system that has care on one end and profits on the other.
Anyways. After seeing the film, I want to ask all opponents of universal health care why they feel the way they do. To me, we are the most powerful nation in the world, what is so hard about taking care of our own people? Well, I've said it many other time before so I'll say it again: seems like you have to be either ignorant ("everyone gets health insurance with their jobs!") or just a heartless prick ("I have health insurance, thats all that matters") to oppose a universal health care plan.
because this is america and we should be able to choose if we want health care, i personally dont want it, because i dont want to pay the premiums every month, we are not socialists, as michael moore would love us to be, we are capitalists.
8.29.00-4.29.03-4.30.03-5.2.03-7.2.03-7.3.03-7.8.03-7.9.03-7.11.03-9.28.04-9.29.04-10.1.04- 10.2.04-10.3.04-5.12.06-5.24.06-5.25.06
...i know all the rules but the rules do not know me, guaranteed...
because this is america and we should be able to choose if we want health care, i personally dont want it, because i dont want to pay the premiums every month, we are not socialists, as michael moore would love us to be, we are capitalists.
So basically if you aren't paying insurance premiums and you aren't paying extra taxes for health care, what happens if tomorrow you are hit by a car and suffer permanant brain damage to the point where you can't leave the hospital. Who pays for your care then?
So basically if you aren't paying insurance premiums and you aren't paying extra taxes for health care, what happens if tomorrow you are hit by a car and suffer permanant brain damage to the point where you can't leave the hospital. Who pays for your care then?
thats his choice, his problem. you dont know this person. he might have money set aside in case this happens. either way its not my business. it's his.
thats his choice, his problem. you dont know this person. he might have money set aside in case this happens. either way its not my business. it's his.
But if a person is brain damaged to the point where they can't make the choice, or if they are not concious, a hosiptal still has to treat them. And if they aren't paying anything into any kind of health care system that means everyone else is paying for their care. At least with the Canadian system everyone is contributing something to it.
because this is america and we should be able to choose if we want health care, i personally dont want it, because i dont want to pay the premiums every month, we are not socialists, as michael moore would love us to be, we are capitalists.
well, I don't want to die, so I don't plan a funeral, write a will, get all involved in that thought process, but you know what? I have no say in the matter.
so what I am saying is even if you don't have health insurance, most likely you will need to go to a dr at some point or the hospital and unless you are wealthy, the hospital bills alone not to even get unto the dr bills and tests they order, etc. is enough to make you in a whole lot of debt..........
just a thought............I do not think that we should pay for insurance either; but still all be able to get good quality healthcare when and if needed. There has to be some way to get the government to look into this further if enough people stand up and request it.........
or am I being too "movie of the week--ish"?
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
I like health care that strives on innovation. your method prevents that.
I don't see it that way. My idea eliminates greedy CEOs and stockholders. money is still collected, government is not involved, employees who work there still get paid, doctors still get paid and there's a lot more money for medical R&D. All I've really done is eliminate the "for profit" angle.
Too radical?.....
Okay, how about this,
If I pay for the possibility of an operation, I should get the operation I need when I need it.
Accountants shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether It's in the providers financial intrests to give me the operation I have premtively paid for.
If I pay for the possibility of an operation, I should get the operation I need when I need it.
Accountants shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether It's in the providers financial intrests to give me the operation I have premtively paid for.
can you at least agree on that?
this jibberish makes no sense. how about we agree that if you need an operation you pay for it. whether it be out of your pocket (not mine) or from your insurance company, if you are smart enough to have some.
this jibberish makes no sense. how about we agree that if you need an operation you pay for it. whether it be out of your pocket (not mine) or from your insurance company, if you are smart enough to have some.
If I pay for healh care to a health care provider I want health care.
By the way, though we disaree on almost everything I still consider you a fairly smart guy. This kind of B.S. is below you. It's very close to juvinille namecalling andstepping over the line of civil discussion we agreed to.
I think you understood my point perfectly, but if you don't, you can simply ask me to clarify. more than happy to accomidate.
By the way, though we disaree on almost everything I still consider you a fairly smart guy. This kind of B.S. is below you. It's very close to juvinille namecalling andstepping over the line of civil discussion we agreed to.
I think you understood my point perfectly, but if you don't, you can simply ask me to clarify. more than happy to accomidate.
I completely agree. 100% if you pay for healthcare you should get the best quality care that you are willing to pay for.
cool, brotha. Additionaly I'd pose the question that if we made major medical affordable (out of their pocket, not yours) for all, we might avoid the glut of people getting life saving operations in emergency rooms?
which you definately do pay for out of your taxes.
I don't see it that way. My idea eliminates greedy CEOs and stockholders. money is still collected, government is not involved, employees who work there still get paid, doctors still get paid and there's a lot more money for medical R&D. All I've really done is eliminate the "for profit" angle.
Too radical?.....
Okay, how about this,
If I pay for the possibility of an operation, I should get the operation I need when I need it.
Accountants shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether It's in the providers financial intrests to give me the operation I have premtively paid for.
can you at least agree on that?
I know this wasn't directed to me; the question that is, but yes I agree with you and will take it a step further that is messed up as well........
if you have health insurance and then you get sick; truly sick where you are now going to have to live with the illness plus all of its' care that'll go with it, i.e., pills, tests, maybe new docs, etc. then the insurance whilte collar comes in, puts your new numbers together and whammo@!! you are now paying more for your health insurance and if for some reason you lose this carrier, change of a job or whatever may be, you are likely to be considered high risk and if you even get coverage, yours could very well be outragously high.
and that is the ironic thing; you got this insirance in case you got sick or hurt and now you are sick or hurt and you get bumped.......???????!!!!!!!
isn't that messed up? it does happen though...........
Baby, You Wouldn't Last a Minute on The Creek......
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Comments
wow, you know the facts......thank you so much because I got a bit lost at the number facts but are you kind of agreeing that some of our expense is wasted on malpractice? Granted it may not at all account for all of it but it does sound like it accounts for a lot of it. Right? Or did I misunderstand?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
i agree that malpractice ins does add some to our cost of healthcare. There is money to be made from healthcare both in it (physicians, allied health providers) and protecting / prosecuting it (attorneys). As long as there is money to be made from suing over an accident, health care issue, the premiums will be high as will the cost of health care. Most suits don't go to trial though. Most physicians choose to settle out of court for X amount of money b/c it would be cheaper and their name isn't run through the mud. I took a bioethics class (with a JD/ PhD) and one of the topics we covered was this. Most lawyers will just call up a doctor and say patient "x" is hurting b/c of a procdure; we're going to sue you but we're willing to settle out of court for "y" amount of money. The doc would be a fool to not write the check if there is any hint that he could be help responsible in a court of law and the cost from going to court, hiring a lawyer for the case, punitive damages would be much greater than the amount the injured party is willing to take. The cost to the physician has to get passed along to someone, and it's often the consumer in businesses. I'm not sure if they'd be nec more protected, but my guess is if we went universal healthcare the gov't would set limits on all sorts of damages and would hopefully guard the physician a little better.
is it hard to sue though? I have seen some people who have thought they were in the right about a dr not doing their job and yet it seemed pretty hard to prove unless it is really obvious. Is it true? It seems like the savvy people who kind of know how to work the system or their lawyers, know what to do to get the money. Am I misinformed? you seem like you know better about the real facts of this.
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
There is lots of room for improvement, but I think if we had a US level tax base, population density and number of medical schools, we would be laughing. I mean I think there are under 20 Canadian medical schools.
it's easy to sue, harder to win, in a court of law. It gets into proving negligence and that's not always easy. But look at the life of a physician / surgeon. YOu see 30-40 (often times more) patients a day (work 6am-7pm at times, operate 2-5 days a week, you're on call...often times it's easier to write the checks on the questionable cases than invest the time to prove your innocence. If you have a claim against you you, even if you're not guilty, you still have to take time off to talk to a lawyer, give depositions etc... Those are days you aren't able to perform surgery or see patients thus loss of revenues and you incur expenses. if you can bring in 2-3K a day and it costs a couple thousand for your lawyer that's about 5K that you've lost...I'd write the check for even more than that so I'm not stressed about the time involved and if the suing lawyer gets you before the claim is filed...it doesn't count against your record, I think. Also, since litigation is used physicians are doing a lot of cover your ass medicine...order a lot of tests, b/c if you don't order a test and find something you could be sued for not ordering it and not finding it (more cost to ins company and to consumers). The saavy people will always figure out how to get their money...there are bad doctors who need to be punished but there are also lawyers and patients who need to be reigned in as well. We expect perfection from physicians but it's not realistic. The easiest way to avoid lawsuits has been shown to say, I'm sorry and how can I make it right. A majority of times that is all people want.
And yes, I am being sarcastic. But only kind of.
for the least they could possibly do
Please elaborate.
11/18/97 Oakland
07/13/98 Los Angeles
07/14/98 Los Angeles
10/31/99 Bridge School
10/28/00 San Bernardino
10/31/00 Mountain View
10/21/01 Bridge School
06/01/03 Mountain View
07/15/06 SF I
07/16/06 SF II
07/18/06 SF III
10/21/06 Bridge School
04/07/08 Berkeley
04/08/08 Berkeley
If Michael Moore is for something, it's a good sign I should probably be against it. He and I are further apart ideologically than Newt Gingrich and Vladimir Lenin.
for the least they could possibly do
A lot of people talk about the fact that the US is one of the richest nations on earth, yet the only industrialised nation without universal healthcare. Do you think the US would be one of the richest industrialised nations still if they'd implimented (sp) universal healthcare in '45 or so (along with Canada, the UK, Europe, Aus, NZ) or that the lower taxes because of the decision against it help spur the economy?
Whaddya reckon?
lack of choices
decrease in quality of care
no way to afford the true cost of it
too much red tape
inadequate agency able to provide care
loss of innovation
I could probably go on.
Millions of Americans have only one choice: No health care because its too expensive. Plus, once you have an HMO, how many choices do you really have?
Unsubstantiated.
Red tape?! Red Tape?! Our current system is made up of red tape!
I think a general mistrust of government is behind this feeling.
Whats the point if most people cannot afford it anyway?
11/18/97 Oakland
07/13/98 Los Angeles
07/14/98 Los Angeles
10/31/99 Bridge School
10/28/00 San Bernardino
10/31/00 Mountain View
10/21/01 Bridge School
06/01/03 Mountain View
07/15/06 SF I
07/16/06 SF II
07/18/06 SF III
10/21/06 Bridge School
04/07/08 Berkeley
04/08/08 Berkeley
I dont support UHC for those reasons. there needs to be compromise. such as free health care for children and seniors.
or a program that allows you to qualify for in (like unemployment benefits)
or tax incentives for companies to provide it.
just clapping your hands and having UHC for 300,000,000 million americans is not practical and will decrease quality.
you say its unsubstantiated but thats completely false. you think there are enough doctors and nurses to provide "free" health care for everyone?
we pay a premium now because its the best. personally, thats how I want it to stay.
It's in the interest of health insurance for healthcare costs to be high so that people HAVE to have health insurance. It is a monopoly and it eliminates competition for prices. Furthermore, we're all still paying for our healthcare anyway AND the salaries and operating costs of the insurance industry. Think about it....insurance companies couldn't exist if they weren't making money....and who are they making money from.....US!
I say eliminate health insurance for everything but catastrophic cases and let the competition keep prices lower. Furthermore, employers could pay higher salaries if they weren't spending so much on insurance (I know some of you will say they won't pay more, but that's a childish view, IMO)
Universal Healthcare is just a WORSE form of what we already have. It eliminates the competition and again we'd still all be paying for it. Furthermore, we'd be relying on the worst money managing entity of all time - the GOVERNMENT - to administer it.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...i know all the rules but the rules do not know me, guaranteed...
So basically if you aren't paying insurance premiums and you aren't paying extra taxes for health care, what happens if tomorrow you are hit by a car and suffer permanant brain damage to the point where you can't leave the hospital. Who pays for your care then?
thats his choice, his problem. you dont know this person. he might have money set aside in case this happens. either way its not my business. it's his.
But if a person is brain damaged to the point where they can't make the choice, or if they are not concious, a hosiptal still has to treat them. And if they aren't paying anything into any kind of health care system that means everyone else is paying for their care. At least with the Canadian system everyone is contributing something to it.
well, I don't want to die, so I don't plan a funeral, write a will, get all involved in that thought process, but you know what? I have no say in the matter.
so what I am saying is even if you don't have health insurance, most likely you will need to go to a dr at some point or the hospital and unless you are wealthy, the hospital bills alone not to even get unto the dr bills and tests they order, etc. is enough to make you in a whole lot of debt..........
just a thought............I do not think that we should pay for insurance either; but still all be able to get good quality healthcare when and if needed. There has to be some way to get the government to look into this further if enough people stand up and request it.........
or am I being too "movie of the week--ish"?
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........
Health Care should be non profit.
I think the base problem is that health care providers are not providing a service, they are more interested in profits.
If you pay in, you should get the service you pay for.
can we at least agree on that and begin at this point?
I like health care that strives on innovation. your method prevents that.
I don't see it that way. My idea eliminates greedy CEOs and stockholders. money is still collected, government is not involved, employees who work there still get paid, doctors still get paid and there's a lot more money for medical R&D. All I've really done is eliminate the "for profit" angle.
Too radical?.....
Okay, how about this,
If I pay for the possibility of an operation, I should get the operation I need when I need it.
Accountants shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether It's in the providers financial intrests to give me the operation I have premtively paid for.
can you at least agree on that?
this jibberish makes no sense. how about we agree that if you need an operation you pay for it. whether it be out of your pocket (not mine) or from your insurance company, if you are smart enough to have some.
If I pay for healh care to a health care provider I want health care.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/
so did this girl, she was "covered".
that's about as simple as I can state it.
not that's it's any of your business but I make a good living and have heath care through my union.
By the way, though we disaree on almost everything I still consider you a fairly smart guy. This kind of B.S. is below you. It's very close to juvinille namecalling andstepping over the line of civil discussion we agreed to.
I think you understood my point perfectly, but if you don't, you can simply ask me to clarify. more than happy to accomidate.
I completely agree. 100% if you pay for healthcare you should get the best quality care that you are willing to pay for.
and I do not know the legalities of this case you mentioned but I'm sure it was wrong of cigna to do that. and they should be sued.
I had a feeling that would push your buttons
cool, brotha. Additionaly I'd pose the question that if we made major medical affordable (out of their pocket, not yours) for all, we might avoid the glut of people getting life saving operations in emergency rooms?
which you definately do pay for out of your taxes.
I think we agree the system needs an overhaul.
I know this wasn't directed to me; the question that is, but yes I agree with you and will take it a step further that is messed up as well........
if you have health insurance and then you get sick; truly sick where you are now going to have to live with the illness plus all of its' care that'll go with it, i.e., pills, tests, maybe new docs, etc. then the insurance whilte collar comes in, puts your new numbers together and whammo@!! you are now paying more for your health insurance and if for some reason you lose this carrier, change of a job or whatever may be, you are likely to be considered high risk and if you even get coverage, yours could very well be outragously high.
and that is the ironic thing; you got this insirance in case you got sick or hurt and now you are sick or hurt and you get bumped.......???????!!!!!!!
isn't that messed up? it does happen though...........
Together we will float like angels.........
In the moment that you left the room, the album started skipping, goodbye to beauty shared with the ones that you love.........