The Health Care "CRISIS" - Does it really exist? How do we fix it?

[MetalMeister]

Notice Italy and Japan's relatively low costs.

So, what is they key?  If we knew the answer maybe we could make a lot of money off the right stocks?

We literally spend more than any other country in the world but we are in a health care crisis??? This seemingly does not make any sense at all.

Any explanations?

www.gnyha.org/3283/File.aspx

As shown in figure 4, medical malpractice expenses represent a greater share of total
operating expenses in New York than in the hospital market basket.12 From 1999 through
2002, medical malpractice insurance expenses represented 3% of total operating expenses
in New York, while the medical malpractice proxy in the U.S. hospital market basket
carried a weighting of only 0.84%.

[sunseeker]

Hi YC
Did you write this?
“The Wall Street Journal summed it up by saying, “the most remarkable quality of this healthcare exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality.”

http://news.goldseek.com/RichardDaughty/1248328920.php

ATB 

[MetalMeister]

SS,

I just wish that I could take credit for having written that article! 

I do think it may come down to the point where those with silver and gold can buy their way out of problems in the future when controls tighten on many liberties.

That is why I recommend that everyone, in addition to regular silver and gold bullion purchases, purchases bags of dimes, quarters, half dollars, all pre 1965 with high % silver in them so that when it comes push to shove and silver is over $200 - $800 an ounce that you have smaller coins that are trade-able or melt-able when the society collapses and security and food are the imminent issues.

http://www.tulving.com/bullion/silver_90_percent_junk_us_50_cent_coin_bags.htm

By the way, now is the time to buy physical silver because the premiums will never be lower because of increased supply in recent months.

Hi YC
Did you write this?
“The Wall Street Journal summed it up by saying, “the most remarkable quality of this healthcare exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality.”

http://news.goldseek.com/RichardDaughty/1248328920.php

ATB 

[onlooker]

YC:

Like SW, I think that Martin Armstrong’s idea of America adopting health care tort reforms will minimize America’s health crisis.

But, Capitol Hill has an abundance of lawyers.  They obviously have a big say on the introduction of any tort reforms.     

From Martin Armstrong's April 2009 report with the title Health Care Reform cannot be done without Tort Reform

It is interesting that the majority of Senators and Congressmen are lawyers.

Costs have escalated because of the lawyers and then the cost of insurance has to reflect the risk of huge jury awards.

The majority of lawyers on Capitol Hill have been preventing this reform because it is not Wall Street, but the legal Profession.

We need tort reform as well – not just picking up the bills for those who cannot afford it.  This will not reduce healthcare costs as a percent of GDP and allows the lawyers to still reap the benefits.

And SW says:

While malpractice is certainly a basis for damages, the huge and outrageous awards in past litigation has made an industry out of suing doctors and medical facilities.  That has built a cottage industry of predatory attorneys seeking their fortune and 40%.

I am sure that the legal profession on Capitol Hill have already discreetly investigated the Canadian-style single-payer medicare system, in which the Canadian government finances and provides the care.

What did they find?

They found some positive aspects of the Canadian medicare system.  That Canadians not only spend less on health care; their health outcomes are better, too.  Life expectancy is longer, and infant mortality is lower.

So, far so good.  But, they also found that in comparison to American lawyers, Canadian lawyers definitely make very little or no money from medical malpractice claims.  That the Supreme Court of Canada has created a cap that applies to all serious personal injury claims.

Posted On: June 17, 2009 by John McKiggan
Medical Malpractice Compensation Caps: The Difference Between the United States and Canada

In Canada, while there are no caps specifically targeted at medical malpractice claims, the Supreme Court of Canada has created a cap that applies to all serious personal injury claims.

Since most people who contact me for medical malpractice claims have suffered catastrophic injuries, the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling effectively caps the amount of compensation they are entitled to receive.


In 1978 in a landmark case known as Teno v. Arnold the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that no matter how seriously injured you are the maximum amount for compensation you can receive for non-pecuniary damages (what is commonly referred to as “pain and suffering”) is $100,000.00.


The reasoning behind the cap was primarily to prevent insurance rates from skyrocketing and becoming unaffordable for consumers.


Taking inflation into account the amount capped on pain and suffering is currently considered to be slightly more than $300,000.00. But that maximum amount is only paid to the most catastrophically injured victims, persons who suffered quadriplegia, severe brain damage and similar injuries.

http://www.halifaxmedicalmalpracticelawyerblog.com/2009/06/medical_malpractice_compensati.html

And see:

Why 98 percent of Canadian Medical Malpractice Victims Never Receive a Penny in Compensationby John McKiggan

A report published in the May 25, 2004 edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled: "The Canadian Adverse Events Study: the incidence of adverse events in hospital patients in Canada" confirmed the findings of similar studies in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark and New Zealand.
The Canadian study concluded:

Are Canadian Medical Malpractice Claims Different Than in the U. S.?
In a word; yes.

In Canada, court awards are much lower than awards for similar injuries from courts in the United States. Cases that might be successful in the U.S. are simply not economically feasible to pursue in Canada.

For the few victims who won at trial, the median damage award was only $95,500.00.

Of more than 5000 lawsuits filed against doctors, only two percent (2 percent) resulted in trial verdicts for the victim.

In other words, 98 percent of Canadian medical malpractice victims never receive a penny in compensation!

See:  http://www.ideamarketers.com/?Why_98_percent_of_Canadian_Medical_Malpractice_Victims_Never_Receive_a_Penny_iin_Compensation&articleid=353917

After seeing these negative financial aspects for Canadian lawyers, why would the legal profession on Capitol Hill want to adopt a Canadian style medicare system?  Though, a Canadian style health care system will benefit the American public, it will curtail the current lucrative American medical mal practice industry. 

The American legal profession is much better off to just have Washington continue its well worn path of spending trillions and making no tort reforms for health care.

Do note that no health care tort reforms for America is already confirmed by the legal profession on Capitol Hill via Obama.

See:

Canada keeps malpractice cost in check
By Susan Taylor Martin, Monday, July 27, 2009

See:  http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1021977.ece

President Barack Obama was booed in June when he told the American Medical Association he wouldn't push for limits on malpractice jury awards in his plan to overhaul the health care system.

"We got a crazy situation where Obama is talking about the cost of medicine but he said, 'I don't believe in caps,' " complains Dr. Dennis Agliano, past president of the Florida Medical Association. "If you don't have caps, the sky's the limit and there's no way to curtail those costs.''

It’s the same old, same old.

[onlooker]

Everything you need to know for a dinner conversation about ... Public health care: Canada vs. United States
By Compiled by Steve Faguy, Canwest News Service; The White House; Organization for economic co-operation and development; CATO InstituteAugust 3, 2009
 
 
So, what's going on? Canada is denying health care to its elderly and sending them out on ice floes to die because they're too expensive to treat.

Seriously? No, but that's what some Americans are starting to believe after the scare tactics in TV ads.

Why on Earth would they spread such awful stories about Canada? Because they don't want our health care system in the United States.

Why not? Because such a system would disrupt the profits of the giant health insurance industry.  So their lobbyists are launching television campaigns and meeting with lawmakers to get proposed health care reform law changed.

So it's all about greed? Not entirely. One worry is that in a government-run system, eventual cost-cutting will reduce the quality of care, without leaving people the choice of going to another provider. This argument has some logic behind it, looking at cuts to health care in Canada in the 1990s.

So Americans don't really want Canadian-style health care. That's not even what they're proposing. What President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have put forward is a health reform package that has the following major points: preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people who have pre-existing medical conditions; forcing all Americans to be insured (which prevents them from gaming the system by only getting insurance after they get sick); saving money through preventive care and by digitizing medical files, among other things; allowing people to keep their employer's health insurance plans even after they lose their jobs; and creating a government-run insurance provider to compete with private providers. It's still a big step from that to Canadian-style single-payer plan, where it's illegal to have private insurance for health care covered under the public plan.

Well, it was illegal, anyway. That's true. Jacques Chaoulli got the Supreme Court of Canada to rule that preventing a private insurance system violated the rights of patients to receive proper medical care without excessive delays.

So what does the industry have against the Obama plan? Conservative think tanks like the Cato Institute say a government-run health insurance system would compete unfairly with private health insurers because it would be funded by taxpayers. They agree that reforms are needed, but want ones that push for individual health insurance instead of employer-provided insurance, and that provide more tax incentives for people to get health insurance plans.

What do ordinary Americans think? A recent poll from CBS and the New York Times showed that 72 per cent of Americans support a public health care plan alongside the private health insurance system.

And doctors? Physicians for a National Health Program represents 14,000 health workers and supports universal health care.

That's a lot. What has the industry been saying about us to change their minds? More like what have we been saying about us. A group called Patients United Now uses Shona Holmes of Waterdown, Ont., in a television ad. Holmes remortgaged her home so she could spend $100,000 to get a growth near her pituitary gland treated at the Mayo Clinic. The alternative would have been months on a waiting list in Canada.

Is this kind of thing common? Common enough that they've given it a name: medical tourism. But it actually happens in both directions. Americans come across to Canada mainly to save money (they still have to pay for care here, but in many cases it's less than what they'd pay at home without insurance), while Canadians with money to spare travel to the U.S. to avoid long waits for surgery.

Sounds like Canadian health care isn't as good as in the U.S. Depends on how you look at it. Proponents of universal health care point to statistics like average life expectancy and infant mortality, which show Canada and other Western countries slightly ahead of the United States.

But that's because we spend more on health care than they do. Actually, it's the opposite. The United States spends almost twice per capita on health care than Canada, and more than any other Western country.

So how is the U.S. system better than ours? Well, they have more stuff. The U.S. has more expensive MRI and CT scanning machines, and they pay their doctors more, which has resulted in a brain drain from Canada to the U.S., and chronic labour shortages north of the border.

Is that why they say we can't choose our own doctor? It's a common claim, but nothing prevents Canadians from getting a second opinion or choosing their family doctor, assuming they can find one. A lack of general practitioners is a big problem here.

So they don't ration care here? Well, we certainly don't leave our seniors to die. But you could argue that long waiting lists for non-urgent treatment constitute a form of care rationing.

Open-ended discussion question: If you took the best of both worlds, what kind of health care system would you have?

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

[MetalMeister]

Now, here is a story with a really interesting twist...

We have the government suing a personal injury lawyer for trying to protect a surgeon "gone wild" from a malpractice lawsuit.

What was it Sidewinder was saying about tort reform??

;~)


http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/28/news/economy/vegas_medical_mafia.fortune/index.htm

In its initial salvo in 2007, the government charged Awand and personal injury lawyer Noel Gage with conspiring to protect two complicit surgeons from a malpractice lawsuit, after their patient, a former Olympic volleyball player, underwent spine surgery and became a paraplegic. One of the surgeons, Dr. John Thalgott, became a cooperating government witness. The other surgeon, Dr. Mark Kabins, became a target. (Kabins himself was indicted earlier this year and is awaiting trial.)

Gage's lawyers argued that only Kabins could refute Thalgott's testimony. But Kabins would not agree to testify unless he was given immunity. When the government refused to grant that immunity, the judge, Justin Quackenbush, dismissed the cases against Gage and Awand, ruling that their right to a fair trial would be violated without Kabins' testimony.

It was one of numerous setbacks in what has seemed like a snake-bitten case for prosecutors. After five years of FBI investigation, three indictments, and a highly publicized trial, no one has been found guilty so far, making clear that it is one thing to allege a conspiracy, another thing to prove it.

[sidewinder]

Without the sort of potential tort awards as seen in the past there would be no incentive for thieving asshole doctors and lower than whale $hit lawyers that concoct these schemes at the expense of the innocent, unsuspecting public. I long ago lost any respect for the legal profession and likewise the Medical "opportunist" that have enjoyed uninhibited growth as public expense.  Before any lawyer or Doctor goes off on me, I do understand that there are many upstanding, morally correct Doctors and lawyers out there but, your professions have become so infested with pond scum it damages the public trust and it is up to you to cut the cancer out of you profession.  Until such a thing happens I will trust none of you and in fact hold all in contempt until I personally know an individuals moral fiber.

I could go much further but, really what's the use?

[Bottomfeeder]

SW....don't forget about all the patients who just use services without regard for cost.  All those patients (most patients) that are even insured, just have a "let insurance cover it" mentality as well.  No sense of responsibility for cost there either.

Me?  When I get sick I go to Urgent Care, pay my $75 bucks, pay for my prescriptions etc.  Insurance is only used for major medical which fortunately I haven't had to use.

Most people?  Go to primary physician, tie up thier doctors with $25 co-pays, and have a bunch of tests run, so THEY can save $50  bucks.

Then want to complain about thier rates going up?  Like they could go and staff an office, pay for administrative support, collecting from insurance companies etc, for $25? 

What else are doctors supposed to do?  Be in practice or not is the reality for doctors with the above scenario.

One thing is for sure in my mind.  That is that the government is NOT the solution for solvency and cost controls.  Just look at what they manage.  Postal service, Amtrak, Fannie, Freddie Medicare, and Social Security.  Any success stories in that list?  Of course not.

Doesn't the governemnt EVER have to PROVE proficency at anything that they manage BEFORE being given the responsibility to manage more of our GDP?

I am shocked that the simple sentence above is not at the TOP OF THE DEBATE before even discussing having the government involved in MORE MANAGEMENT OF ANYTHING.  On its own it should be an open and shut argument.  NEXT!

[MetalMeister]

Dead on.  My GP is one of those I trust.  Had him speak at a political function recently on the negative aspects of NObamacare and the need for tort reform and liability and pain and suffering limits.

Absolutely astounding how much they pay in insurance costs for malpractice!!!

Without the sort of potential tort awards as seen in the past there would be no incentive for thieving asshole doctors and lower than whale $hit lawyers that concoct these schemes at the expense of the innocent, unsuspecting public. I long ago lost any respect for the legal profession and likewise the Medical "opportunist" that have enjoyed uninhibited growth as public expense.  Before any lawyer or Doctor goes off on me, I do understand that there are many upstanding, morally correct Doctors and lawyers out there but, your professions have become so infested with pond scum it damages the public trust and it is up to you to cut the cancer out of you profession.  Until such a thing happens I will trust none of you and in fact hold all in contempt until I personally know an individuals moral fiber.

I could go much further but, really what's the use?

[MetalMeister]

My Doctor tells me they are now seeing a downturn in the number of candidates applying for medical school because they can make more money elsewhere.  Even after residency, they can go to a pharmaceutical company and make more because they do not have to worry about malpractice lawsuits...

What else are doctors supposed to do?  Be in practice or not is the reality for doctors with the above scenario.

[sidewinder]

Now the news is reporting that the IRS will be the enforcement arm on the new Health Bill.  Something like a box on the form 1040 to verify the individual has health insurance.  Then the IRS will be required to check and make sure you did not lie about it.  You can be fined and punished  through the Internal Revenue code for violations of the new health care code and the regulations (which will be written and enforced by the IRS). 

I don't know about you guys but I am beginning to feel a sense of urgency in regards to the  downfall of our society.  The slow motion part of this drama is beginning to pick up speed.  I truly don't know when the average citizen will be fed up as we Americans are quite tolerant for the most part.  But when things get out of hand they happen suddenly. 

I don't pray, but am thinking about it now.     

[MetalMeister]

I'm with you on this one.

Time for the real Patriots to step it up and deny these 1984 scenarios...

The Dems sure do love their control features!  But so has most socialist, fascist, communist, and dictatorial regimes...

 

[sidewinder]

I'm with you on this one.

Time for the real Patriots to step it up and deny these 1984 scenarios...

The Dems sure do love their control features!  But so has most socialist, fascist, communist, and dictatorial regimes...

 

And so does the party of Lincoln.  I will give no quarter because you are a Republican and I like you.  I hold both parties equally in contempt as both parties have been guilty of implementing Marxist policies through the years. 
 

[sunseeker]

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1256750826.php

I go along with what is written in this article.
This year I needed an operation and wasn’t willing to wait 6 months to have it done on the NHS (the UK state system). I opted to have the operation privately. I asked my physician to refer me to the best person in the field which he did. After my consultation the surgeon left me to sort out the financial aspects with his secretary. The first question was about my health insurance. Answer I haven’t any. Do you know how much it will cost? Answer I have looked on the net. So I have a ball park figure in mind. After a phone call to the private hospital his secretary hit me with the price. It was nearly a third LESS than I had expected to pay. That’s because you haven’t got private health insurance. All of which backs up what was written in the article.
OTHERWISE:
It was my very first time in hospital as a patient. The operation was text book, and I must say that despite the discount I couldn’t have received any better treatment. First class. You would even have to look very hard to see the operation scar at all.

ATB 

[onlooker]

Sunseeker:

Glad to hear you are recuperating well and did not endure any serious financial hardships.   

Some Americans have health insurance, and they can still end up broke.  The American health care system definitely needs to be fixed.
 
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-10.htm