Re: Healthcare Reform

More | Report Post

Do the math. Insurance premiums are at an all time high. Ostensibly,
this was the “excuse” to enact the heath reform bill. Insurance
companies operate at a 3.3% profit margin - ranking well below most
every other industry in this country. (That fact seems to escape most
everyone arguing against the insurance industry.)

So if the insurance industry is not profiteering, why are insurance
premiums escalating?

Hint - Increase in the cost to cover medical expenses and increase in
costs to defend legal cases.

So why are medical expenses rising?

Hint - Higher operating costs due to increase costs for medical supplies
and equipment as well as higher insurance premiums for doctors and
facilities.

So why are medical supply and equipment costs rising?

Hint - Higher delivery costs for R&D and higher legal expenses.

So why are insurance costs rising for doctors and facilities?

Hint - Higher exposure to lawsuits.

Without tort reform, there is no hope of reigning in medical costs. This
was a ruse for big government to become bigger. With the passing of the
health bill, big government now controls 48% of commerce in this
country. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will.

Thomas Paine

On 3/31/10, Sharon wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> Define "Tort Reform". You mean as in the following endeavor by
> America's leading voices in "tort reform", the Manhattan Institute and
> the US Chamber?:
>
> Deposition testimony of Bruce Kelman, July 22, 2008 in the matter of
> Kelman et al. v. Kramer, Case No. GIN044539, San Diego Superior Court:
>
> Q: Do you remember how it came about; what was the genesis of how the
> Manhattan Institute report came about?
>
> Bruce Kelman: I got a call. I remember the person I was talking to
> said they wanted to -- they read the ACOEM position statement on mold;
> that it was hard to understand, and I said that it had been written
for
> physicians. And at the time, the question was, Well could you write
> something -- would you be willing to write an article that would be
> more assessable, for example, to judges.
>
> Q: Did he tell you why it was he wanted this to be assessable to
> judges?
>
> A: That's all he said.
> .................................
>
> Q: So you wrote the line, quote, The notion that toxic mold is an
> insidious secret killer, as so many media reports and trial lawyers
> would claim, is junk science, unsupported by actual scientific study?
> Those were your words?
>
> A: They were either mine or Dr. Hardin’s. I don’t remember which. We
> both worked on the transcript. I’m sorry. I meant manuscript.
> .............................
>
> Q: ...Who actually did the process of writing the Manhattan Institute
> report?
>
> A: The majority was Dr. Hardin and I and Andy Saxon did some
> sections.
>
> Q: Was Dr. Saxon paid in terms of his involvement with preparing the
> Manhattan Institute report?
>
> A: No he was not.
>
> .............................
>
> Q: Did anybody else besides the Manhattan Institute make any
payments
> to Veritox for the Manhattan Institute report?
>
> A: No.
>
> ...............................
>
> Q: Did you get Dr. Saxon's permission to list him as a co-author in
> the Manhattan Institute paper?
>
> A: We did.
>
> Q: You asked for it and he said yes?
>
> A: He said he had no objection.
>
>
> Deposition testimony of Andrew Saxon, November 28, 2006, in the
> matter of Hake v. Coleman Homes et al, Case No. A496174 8th District,
> Nevada (“Hake Case”):
>
> Q. When the lay version of the ACOEM paper was printed by the
Institute
> For Legal Reform [sic, US Chamber ILR], the ACOEM again did not have
> any conflict-of-interest waiver on your part, did it?
>
> Andrew Saxon: I have no idea. I've never seen that version. I'll call
> it the nonscientific piece that has my name on it.
>
> Q. From your view, did you make any efforts, despite anyone calling
you
> or anything else, to make sure that a conflict-of-interest waiver was
> included with the lay version put out by the Institute For Legal
Reform?
>
> A. No, because I didn't even know my name was on it.
>
>
> LOL. Is that what you mean by "Tort Reform"? Listed authors directly
> conflicting under oath about who really wrote what "tort reform" paper
> for the Manhattan Institute CLP and the US Chamber ILR?
>
> On 3/31/10, Thomas Paine wrote:
>> Well with AT&T, Caterpillar, AK Steel Holding and 3M announcing non-
>> cash expenses against earnings as a result of Barry’s health care
>> reform law, not sure the intended result was achieved. The new law
>> is on track to cost US corporations as much as $14 billion this year
>> alone. Since the economy does not operate in a vacuum (news to
>> Washington I am sure) this will result in layoffs, reduced payroll
>> taxes, and an acceleration in companies moving offshore.
>>
>> The problem is not the evil insurance companies who typically net a
>> 3.3&37; profit margin. The problem is there is no tort reform in this
>> bill. In fact, there is very little in the bill that will reduce
>> medical costs. With many doctors now threatening to quit their
>> practices, costs may in fact increase and delays in treatment will
>> most certainly increase.
>>
>> This law is a perfect example of utopian dreams clashing with
>> reality. The ideologues and progressives in Washington who cannot
>> see beyond tomorrow’s headlines will soon face a very angry
>> electorate come November. With an influx of true Constitutional
>> patriots in Washington, de-funding the law will be the first step
>> followed by a repeal in 2012.
>>
>> At least Jimmy Carter is happy he is no longer the worst President
>> in the history of our nation.
>>
>> Thomas Paine
>>
>> On 3/27/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> Thanks, Deborah. JC, the problem is that unlike other industries
>>> who increase their bottom line profits by satisfying and therefore
>>> growing their customer base; the insurance industy generates their
>>> bottom line profits by NOT taking care of their customers.
>>>
>>> And they have their fingers in many pies. Question: If health
>> care
>>> accounts for 1/6 of our nation's economy, what is the total
>>> percentage of our economy impacted by the insurance industry, not
>>> just health insurers? They don't just deny treatments that are
>>> based on accepted medical practice. They run the game on
>>> establishing what are established as acceptable medical
>> treatments.
>>> There is alot of money going to alot of teaching hospitals that
>>> seem to "educate" in a manner favorable to insurers.
>>>
>>> Seems to me, we just gave them trillions of our tax dollars to pay
>>> for 30 million more guranteed clients for them, and we made a law
>>> that everyone in the US must pay to buy a service from a private
>>> entity, the insurance industry; based on the premise that, this
>>> time, they promise they will be good.
>>>
>>> Does anyone really believe that bottom line profits for their
>>> shareholders of the insurance industry will no longer take
>>> precedence over the clients they are guaranteed to have with us
>>> paying for it via our tax dollars?
>>>
>>> I think all this hoopla of them supposedly protesting healthcare
>>> reform was kinda like "Oh please, Mr. Obama. Don't throws me in
>>> the briar patch".
>>>
>>> And...the US Chamber of Commerce is already gearing up big time
>> for
>>> the Republicans to take back control of government. When that
>>> happens coupled with all the money we just allocated to the
>>> insurance industry; we might as well put an addition onto the oval
>>> office for the Executive Of The Insurance Industry Branch of
>>> Government.
>>>
>>> I sure hope I am wrong on this one!
>>>
>>> Sharon
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/27/10, Deborah wrote:
>>>> well put and my take on it too.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/25/10, Sharon wrote:
>>>>> I think their original intent was honorable and surely if you
>>>>> spend trillions of dollars something good will come of it,
>>>>> somewher along the line. But in general, I think they lost
>>>>> sight of the goal posts as they punted away our children's
>>>>> economic future to the players for the corporate team.
>>>>>
>>>>> CLIFF NOTES:
>>>>>
>>>>> Question: How do you punish the insurance industry for their
>>>>> past misdeeds of greed and corruption in health care, wrongful
>>>>> medical treatments, wrongful denials and undue influence over
>>>>> US health policies and practices; and provide safeguards in
>>>>> public health policy so that they do not practice these
>>>>> deceptive tactics in the future?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you:
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Take the monopoly of control over healthcare away from them
>>>>> by adding competition to the equation that will force them to
>>>>> fulfill obligations to their clientele if they desire to keep
>>>>> their clients’ business - the basic principle of our economy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or
>>>>>
>>>>> B. i.) Give them billions of taxpayer dollars; ii.) give them
>>>>> greater control over healthcare and the medical community to
>>>>> decide what is evidence based medical practices as a matter of
>>>>> policy; and iii.) force all US citizens to pay to participate
>>>>> in the "reformed" plan under threat that they will be
>>>>> financially penalized if they fail to do so?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would choose "A", but I think we just chose "B".
>>>>>
>>>>> Sharon
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/25/10, Thomas Paine wrote:
>>>>>> The Cliff Note Version is - taxes will increase, medical
>>>>>> costs will increase and the quality of care will decrease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even the guys who wrote the thing and voted on it have a
>>>>>> clue what’s in the bill or how it will be rolled out. Of
>>>>>> course, taxes will be collected long before We The People
>>>>>> understand how the system will work or IF it will work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Big government for little sheeple - the incompetent leading
>>>>>> the blind. We The People are no longer relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thomas Paine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/25/10, Deborah wrote:
>>>>>>> Anyone read the entire thing? Is there a Cliff Notes
>>>>>>> version?