YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Norma Rae Dead at 68. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/nor...r-two-year-stru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Norma Rae Dead at 68. http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/nor...r-two-year-stru More regulation needed of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 More regulation needed of course. Not the way I would go... start by eliminating insurance all together, and do tort reform, raise the bar for criminal penalties for doctors that f-up and hospital administrators. Go to sliding scale pay as you go. It would bring down costs pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 More regulation needed of course. It would be nice, at least, if they'd regulate the lawyers and accountants out of the medical decision-making process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Not the way I would go... start by eliminating insurance all together, and do tort reform, raise the bar for criminal penalties for doctors that f-up and hospital administrators. Go to sliding scale pay as you go. It would bring down costs pretty quickly. Ok, you eliminate the insurance companies. How does Norma Rae come up with $100K for the treatment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I got an idea, how about just enforcing current regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Ok, you eliminate the insurance companies. How does Norma Rae come up with $100K for the treatment? Sally Fields could be more neighborly and give it to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 It would be nice, at least, if they'd regulate the lawyers and accountants out of the medical decision-making process. And go back to the old days? I had a younger brother that died in 1969, days after his birth. You know what my father said to the doctor? He said: "Why is he blue? He is premature, is that a problem?" You know what the doctor (pediatrician) said: "Oh, that is normal!" Ya, real phuckin' normal! My father almost strangled the bastard in the hall when he seen him after the death... My mother was still in the hospital, had three young children at home and had to bury my brother alone ... Didn't even have a coffin small enough... It was a foam box. Tore my father up and took it especially hard... It was hyaline membrane disease... This was 6 YEARS after the famous Kennedy baby died (Patrick) died of the same thing... Ya... Where were the lawyers and accountants when you need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Ok, you eliminate the insurance companies. How does Norma Rae come up with $100K for the treatment? I guess she doesn't and the doctors stay out of work till they lower their prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 And go back to the old days? I had a younger brother that died in 1969, days after his birth. You know what my father said to the doctor? He said: "Why is he blue? He is premature, is that a problem?" You know what the doctor (pediatrician) said: "Oh, that is normal!" Ya, real phuckin' normal! My father almost strangled the bastard in the hall when he seen him after the death... My mother was still in the hospital, had three young children at home and had to bury my brother alone ... Didn't even have a coffin small enough... It was a foam box. Tore my father up and took it especially hard... It was hyaline membrane disease... This was 6 YEARS after the famous Kennedy baby died (Patrick) died of the same thing... Ya... Where were the lawyers and accountants when you need them. And managed care would have made a difference? You think a bean-counter at an HMO would have said "Your medical judgement is wrong, treat him"? You're stipulating that a lawyer would have saved your brother's life when the doctor didn't? Because you're missing my point...that being, when doctors' judgement can be overridden by non-medical professionals for non-medical considerations, you will get sh------- care. I'm not talking about getting lawyers and accountants uninvolved in malpractice, I'm talking about getting them uninvolved in care. No doctor should have his medical judgement overturned by non-medical decision makers, and if they do said non-medical decision makers should be subject to the same penalties for bad decisions that doctors are held to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 And managed care would have made a difference? You think a bean-counter at an HMO would have said "Your medical judgement is wrong, treat him"? You're stipulating that a lawyer would have saved your brother's life when the doctor didn't? Because you're missing my point...that being, when doctors' judgement can be overridden by non-medical professionals for non-medical considerations, you will get sh------- care. I'm not talking about getting lawyers and accountants uninvolved in malpractice, I'm talking about getting them uninvolved in care. No doctor should have his medical judgement overturned by non-medical decision makers, and if they do said non-medical decision makers should be subject to the same penalties for bad decisions that doctors are held to. That post is so sensible that Vegas put the over/under on Smilies you're going to get in the response at 3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 Sally Fields could be more neighborly and give it to her. I didn't say I had a full answer, maybe use the tax dollars we all pay in for everyone in a pot and then let care be determined by Doctors. I am not sure how best to handle the administration of the thing. If there was approved procedures that this money could be used for and the rest be voluntary, folks would know ahead of time if they were approved or needed supplementary care. Kinda like an MSA, but in a fund designated and everyone pay in. I still don't like the current system and directly paying the Doctors seems like a better deal than using an intermediary that eats up dollars through absorbent administrative costs. Then if the Doctor Fs up, they should be held criminally liable... or if it is experimental or risky then a person should know ahead of time and sign a waiver for only that part of the procedure actually risky and be the waiver would could hold up in court. Mistakes or screw ups by medical staff don't count in the waiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 And managed care would have made a difference? You think a bean-counter at an HMO would have said "Your medical judgement is wrong, treat him"? You're stipulating that a lawyer would have saved your brother's life when the doctor didn't? Because you're missing my point...that being, when doctors' judgement can be overridden by non-medical professionals for non-medical considerations, you will get sh------- care. I'm not talking about getting lawyers and accountants uninvolved in malpractice, I'm talking about getting them uninvolved in care. No doctor should have his medical judgement overturned by non-medical decision makers, and if they do said non-medical decision makers should be subject to the same penalties for bad decisions that doctors are held to. The problem is that doctors get paid by the treatment. So what is stopping a doctor from ordering MRIs or CAT scans just to bring in a little more cash? This is one of the biggest problems that we have right now. You can't blame the insurance company for denying treatments, if you know that a doctor could be ordering that treatment just to pad his pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 The problem is that doctors get paid by the treatment. So what is stopping a doctor from ordering MRIs or CAT scans just to bring in a little more cash? This is one of the biggest problems that we have right now. You can't blame the insurance company for denying treatments, if you know that a doctor could be ordering that treatment just to pad his pockets. Or to cover his ass to avoid malpractice claims. The system is messed up and needs to be reformed, which is exactly what this administration is trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Or to cover his ass to avoid malpractice claims. The system is messed up and needs to be reformed, which is exactly what this administration is trying to do. Except it's not. It's only addressing one side of the issue - getting more people covered. It's woefully silent on tort reform or being honest with how it's going to fund the costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Except it's not. It's only addressing one side of the issue - getting more people covered. It's woefully silent on tort reform or being honest with how it's going to fund the costs. I thought Obama was going to 'squeeze out' all the waste and inefficiencies in the system to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I thought Obama was going to 'squeeze out' all the waste and inefficiencies in the system to pay for it? That's what I thought. I guess he needs his health care plan passed before he decides that saving all that money is worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 That's what I thought. I guess he needs his health care plan passed before he decides that saving all that money is worth it. He probably needs to hire a few thousand more bureaucrats (at union scale pay/pension) to help him do all that squeezing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Except it's not. It's only addressing one side of the issue - getting more people covered. It's woefully silent on tort reform or being honest with how it's going to fund the costs. So it must be all or nothing? Large problems are sometimes best handled in smaller, more manageable steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 Except it's not. It's only addressing one side of the issue - getting more people covered. It's woefully silent on tort reform or being honest with how it's going to fund the costs. Obama's tort reform czar is a plaintiff's lawyer no? How could that go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts