Universal Health Care anyone?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Ectopic Tiger, Apr 27, 2004.

  1. Ectopic Tiger

    Ectopic Tiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    3
    link
     
  2. DallasLSU

    DallasLSU Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    19
    I mean, you don't want to blame the receptionist, because she was probably following the rules of her job...but she neither the man is an expert at medicine and if he had seen a doctor at that point, they probably would have saved him....Sad,sad....
     
  3. Ectopic Tiger

    Ectopic Tiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    3
    Exactly. The government is not going to be held liable. The article is constructed to place blame on the clerk, and the even mention a police investigation into some "criminal act", whatever that was supposed to mean.
     
  4. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,314
    Likes Received:
    560
    Universal health care would be the worst thing to do.
    People in Canada and other places go to the doctor or hospital for every little thing and that leaves the people with real serious issues on a list somewhere.

    It just doesn't work not to mention the middle class most likely would split the bill on this with higher taxes or a new tax.

    Also a private enterprise system is better because the incentive to develop new medicine and new health discoveries are profitable so that aides in health science advances, under a government system it just doesn't work.

    My wife and her father are veterans and she was misdiagnosed once when she was in basic, they said she had some disease and wouldn't live past 30 and then found out
    he made a mistake.

    Six months before her dad passed away the VA put her dad on some kind of spray.
    It made him hack up stuff and he had to take a bag everywhere he went.
    He didn't have that problem before going to the VA that last visit.
    He died the around New Years Day 99 I think.

    I don't think a health care system would be any different than the VA, that doesn't also include that you can't just go into the VA anytime you like either, like calling your
    doctor for an appointment and then going in that week.

    The post office isn't much better either in thier service so I'm totally against the government running anything the private sector can do better!
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    again i agree completely with sourdoughman. profit motive makes almost everything better. like the 'doughman said, contrast the post office with the service you get from UPS or fedex, who actually need to perform well or they will be punished by the marketplace.
     
  6. Bengal B

    Bengal B Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2002
    Messages:
    47,023
    Likes Received:
    22,171
    I'm beginning to believe that you and sourdoughman really are the same person

    :D
     
  7. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,314
    Likes Received:
    560
    Me Too! :shock: :D
     
  8. Jetstorm

    Jetstorm Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,218
    Likes Received:
    29
    And that's the dirty little secret of socialized medicine. If the doctor amputates the wrong arm, there is no way to seek redress for that grievance. Your all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent, perfect government cannot be held liable for the errors of it's apparatchiks and does not have the time, the money, or the inclination to fight off every little petty complaint. You peons should be grateful for this free health care you receive, even if you have to stand in line for nine hours just so your child with 103 degree fever can see a nurse practicioner!!! Now silence! :cuss:

    Socialized medicine, of course, would be the ultimate medical malpractice "reform." Because you would not have the right to sue if you were a victim of malpractice. Democrats are actually very much in favor of medical malpractice reform. They want the ultimate "reform." Nothing less, of course; that's why they, along with the trial lawyers (who see only short term financial gain) block any and all attempts at medical malpractice reform, hiding behind protecting "the little guy." What they really want is the little guy's total dependence on the govt. for health care. Nationalized health care isn't the next step toward total govt. control of our private lives; it is just total control. We all become sheep the day this happens.

    For me, it's a matter of choice, freedom, and individuality. Very few things are more vital and also more personal and private than your health care, and I think Americans should retain the right to make their own health care arrangements and choose their own doctors. Now, costs are out of control, and it is becoming more and more difficult for the average family to afford health care. That's why we need medical malpractice reform and tort reform, even in the form of capping damages awarded in lawsuits. Costs will continue to spiral out of control if we don't put a few reasonable, common sense restrictions on the process. I'm not talking about denying anyone their day in court or preventing them from seeking compensation for their loss. But the multi-million dollar judgements have got to stop. They are killing our system, driving doctors out of the practice, and putting hospitals and clinics out of business.
     
  9. Ectopic Tiger

    Ectopic Tiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    3
    Never thought of that. It makes sense though

    That's one of the main reasons why I'm voting for Bush. Here's his plan for reform:

    Improve the ability of all patients who are injured by negligence to get
    quicker, unlimited compensation for their “economic losses,” including the
    loss of the ability to provide valuable unpaid services like care for children or
    a parent.
    · Ensure that recoveries for non-economic damages could not exceed a
    reasonable amount ($250,000).
    · Reserve punitive damages for cases that justify them--where there is clear
    and convincing proof that the defendant acted with malicious intent or
    deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury to the patient--and avoid
    unreasonable awards (anything in excess of the greater of two times
    economic damages or $250,000).
    · Provide for payment of a judgment over time rather than in one lump sum--
    and thus ensure that the money is there for the injured patient when
    needed.
    · Ensure that old cases cannot be brought years after an event when medical
    standards may have changed or witnesses’ memories have faded, by
    providing that a case may not be brought more than three years following
    the date or injury or one year after the claimant discovers or, with
    reasonable diligence, should have discovered the injury.
    · Informing the jury if a plaintiff also has another source of payment for the
    injury, such as health insurance.
    · Provide that defendants pay any judgment in proportion to their fault, not on
    the basis of how deep their pockets are.

    In addition to this, I think all cases should go before a panel of doctors to determine if the case has merit. I think Louisiana already does this, which is why malpractice insurance is reasonable in LA. MS on the other hand, is a mess. Ob/gyn's are leaving that state to practice in LA. Very few towns with a population under 20,000 in MS has a doctor that delivers babies.
     

Share This Page