Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Lordrobot (89.89)

If Capitalism were allowed to fix healthcare...

Recs

9

September 15, 2009 – Comments (19) | RELATED TICKERS: THC

First why is health care so expensive?

That’s easy, defensive medicine. Let me give you an example. Suppose a drug seeker comes into their local ER with a fake complaint of stomach pain so they can secure a prescription for lortab. They eat up everyone’s time in an emergency room that exists to treat real and serious illness. So what’s the doctor going to do even if this patient has made fifty visits over the last year for the same thing; and he knows the guy is a fake, "just looking for lortab in all the wrong places?" (my song title) 

The doctor is going to order blood work, a urine, urine drug screen, a CT scan of the belly with oral and IV contrast, and if the patient is older, they are also going to do the full cardiac workup. This will tie up an ER bed for hours. Does the drug seeker care? The answer is no; he isn’t going to pay; he doesn’t have worry about any of it because federal law prevents the hospital from reporting this theft of care on his credit report. So he can be a deadbeat even if he can pay.  

After this multi-thousand dollars work up, the doctor has found nothing but the pain continues according to the drug seeking patient. The doctor will now admit the patient to the hospital for intractable abdominal pain and will order surgery consults and cardiac consults and spread the liability. Why doesn’t the doctor send this guy home? It is a statistical issue. The doctor knows that if he sends this fraud home, and if by some quirk of fate the guy has say an appendix attack two weeks later, then he can be sued by this loser for failure to diagnose. Somehow the jury will tie the two events together and even if the matter doesn’t go to court the insurance company will settle the matter, virtually any matter for 40,000 dollars. Only last year did they pass a law that allows the doctor to continue to fight the case. Prior to this the insurance company could settle and force the doctor to fight his own case and risk his own assets.

You name the case, and I promise I can give you a perfect rationale for turning it into a $100K hospital stay. For example the doctor finds gall stones that were previously diagnosed and known to the patient. Admit them to surgery because a flick of a stone could go retrograde and up the pancreatic duct causing pancreatitis and killing the beta cells of langerhans turning the patient into a life time insulin taking diabetic. It happens all the time.

One doctor had a real patient not a drug seeker that came in with blood in the urine and a report of a raging right flank pain that had disappeared a day previous and followed by blood red urine. The doctor figure it was a kidney stone so he did the urine and did a CT scan. Though the patient had no abdominal pain whatsoever, he did have a ruptured appendix. He was taken to emergency surgery with a good outcome. The non risk adverse doctor never would have ordered that CT scan. Defensive medicine pays off in this case for both the patient and the doctor. But the test was done on a real patient not a durg seeker. Doctors are smart so why not let them do what they do best. Don't make them play this malpractice game with drug seekers. It is extimated that 1/3 of all patients to an ER are drug seekers.

 Here is how Capitalism can fix the whole mess:

First, there are three classifications of illness that exist:

1)      accidents

2)      acute illness

3)      chronic illness

Accidents happen. But why should citizens pay for some guy that crashes his motorcycle without wearing a helmet or without having adequate accident coverage. A brain injury will require hospital care up into the millions especially if surgery is required. Why should preventable accidents be the burden of the hospital? They shouldn’t. Thus, if you want to drive a motorcycle, then you have to have a very large major medical policy or a large insurance coverage for protection. There is no reason to allow dangerous instrumentalities to pay less when accidents cost more. A smart car may be smart at the gas pump but it is a death trap if you get into an accident even with a midsized pickup truck. 

Acute illness could be something like a heart attack or pneumonia or appendix or some severe illness that arises unexpectedly. This can all be managed with a simple major medical policy with a deductable that suits the individual’s financial circumstances. A bond should be required in those that have poor credit ratings.

Chronic illnesses have to be treated by doctors that follow the patient to prevent them from turning into hospitalizations. This is the only type of care that requires an involved ongoing clinical relationship with specialists. It is a small portion of the population which does increase with aging but with aging and natural death, that population is reduced in size; its pretty constant.

 The Wal-mart, Target, Publix, Win Dixie Solution:

The above companies have prescription drug formularies which are remarkable. Virtually any disease known can be treated from the Wal-Mart or Target formularies. The cost is just $4 for a prescription. Publix and Win Dixie offer free antibiotics. So if you have a prescription from a doctor for the covered antibiotics, it costs you nothing. It is very affordable. It is cheaper than a co-pay.

 What about a reasonable cost doctor visit?

Blame Medicare and Medicaid for this. Any doctor that cuts you a cash price or a special low rate price has just committed Medicare fraud for every patient he has seen under Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Federal law makes it illegal for the doctor to charge any patient less than he charges a Medicare or Medicaid patients. This is price fixing.

With current reimbursements, a Doctor could see a patient easily for $35. This is because he bills Medicare for a visit at $80 but Medicare will only pay $35. But the Doctor billed Medicare $80 so even though they only get $35, they can’t just charge the patient $35 but must charge at least $80. Sounds stupid and it is.

Just for your edification, how much do you think a heart surgeon gets for a heart bypass surgery? Surprise, he only gets paid $1250. The surgery will take up to 8 hours and will require a lot of follow up etc. That is all he gets for all that special training. Gall Bladders pay about $340. The bottom line is that the doctors are not the cause of the high cost of medicine. Besides before the surgeon sees his first patient, he has to pay $100K in malpractice. It is all about tort reform. But that is not even mentioned in the Obamacare plan.

 My ultimate plan to fix medical malpractice costs:

This is my unique plan. I have been working on it for years and it couldn’t be simpler to understand. Insure the patient visit not the doctor. Here is how it would work.

A patient comes to see a doctor and at the front window decides if they want the visit covered by medical malpractice. The cost will be a dollar or two extra. If medical malpractice results from that visit, then they may have the right to sue for damages. This will work the same way for surgeries but the cost would be more like ten or twenty dollars. If the patient declines coverage then they are foreclosed from suing PERIOD! They sign a note to that effect. It is just that simple.

Lawyers would want patients to take malpractice coverage, so would insurance companies. Doctors would be relieved once and for all of the outrageous expense of carrying malpractice insurance and could operate vastly more economically practical offices.

It is so simple yet, I have submitted my plan to many politicians with no response. My efforts have been ignored. Democrats and Republicans don’t respond.

 So put it all together and fill in the gaps with Capitalism: 

1) Insurance companies must be allowed to compete across state lines which the federal government does not presently allow.

2) Cherry picking of healthy individuals offering them low rates should be allowed. Present state and federal laws do not allow this with health care coverage. It works in car insurance and it would work well in heath care insurance.

3) Unlock doctor to allow them to set patient visit costs as they see fit and do not allow Medicare or Medicare to dictate price controls. Let medical centers across the nation compete for patients with lower prices. End the price fixing of the federal government. Everybody benefits. A medical center that does more heart bypass gets better at it and does it for less cost.

4) Have insurance companies bring back major medical insurance plans that cover only accidents and acute illness. These would be dirt cheap unless you invite accidents like wearing no helmet on a motorcycle.

5) Cultivate the buying power of innovative companies like Wal-mart and Target and use their formularies as the fist choice in care. Let them compete.

6) Eliminate malpractice insurance unless the patient pays for it on a per-visit or per-procedure basis. It would be very low cost, essentially negligible, due to the cost reductions for the office visit. Doctors could even include it in the office visits as an incentive to build their practices.

7) Take all high risk patients that suffer chronic illnesses and put them in a high risk pool lottery HMO in which they are assigned an insurance carrier from all those that write major medical policies, the same as they do with teen drivers or people with poor driving records. This policy alone would be subsidized by a tax credit and at age 70 included under Medicare coverage only for those with incomes under $36K a year on a step up graduation.

8) And for indigents they can still get Medicaid with a few caviets. First, they can be randomly drug tested and bucked out for using illegal drugs. If they are obese, they have six months to get that under control and show progress toward improved biometrics. If they abuse the emergency room or engage in drug seeking behavior they may lose Medicaid. Medicaid coverage will be limited to the cost of a major medical policy, 25 doctor visits a year and a 100 script limit on the $4 formulary at Wal-mart or Target or other participating pharmacy. [The goal is to give them what they need but not allow them to abuse the system and generocity of the taxpayers.]

 Result: My plan will save trillions over time and costs zero to the taxpayers to implement. It doesn't limit care, it limits the frequency and abuse of care and encourages competition. There is no more right to medical care than there is a right to a burial plot, a deluxe corn row hair transplant like Joe Bidens or breast implants. Inexpensive major medical plans to cover acute illness and accidents is all most Americans will ever need.

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 15, 2009 at 6:39 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Where in the world does your plan exist so we can see an example in practice?

1) insurance companys competing across state lines: They are allowed to now, if they want to follow the rules set by that State, which is still a right of that State. 

2) cherry picking of healthy individuals is currently allowed and is part of the problem.

3) Contrary to libertarians  opinions, competition does not seem able to lower costs without lowering quality. From a well regulated high quality staring point there is often room to make some improvement without sacrificing quality. When that is done competition then forces lower quality, and cutting corners, becomes the competitve edge. ALWAYS. Medical waste disposal goes to the lowest bidder and the nearest water way.

4) Insurance companies have plans that only cover accidents and acute illness right now. In many cases this forces people to wait until they have an acute illness to see a Doctor.

5) walmart is known for the quality you lost in #3. Thats why it is as expensive a Sachs and can charge a premium.

6) Interesting idea. Not likely, but interesting. whats in this for the malpractice insurer, if prices are so low?

7) Is this high risk "and" chronic illness, or high risk defined as chronic illness. Chronic illness is not "risk" it is a known expense, and you want the Gov't to pay for these folks because Private insurers collected premiums for promising to? Use Gov't to pay for Capitalism, been done before.

8) telling people how to live their lives is cool. Lets also extend controls to rotten bosses, who add stress to our lives, and workaholics who work themselves to death.

When I read posts like this, I am so thankful I voted for Obama, and we could do so much better than what he is going to get us.

Let's add this idea to your capitalist plan. End the Gov't guarantee of honoring your healthcare policy if your insurer's business fails. It's like these insurers are a GSE or something. Let them be backed by AIG.

Report this comment
#2) On September 15, 2009 at 10:23 PM, streetflame (31.06) wrote:

I agree we need tort reform, but the idea that someone could only sue for medical malpractice if they opt in and pay money upfront is pretty far off the deep end legally.  It seems to me it would require a constitutional amendment.

As far as the rest of it, devoish runs it down pretty well. Point 7 is a pointless insurance company giveaway.  Too bad we may have a plan similar to that enacted soon.

It sounds like you are seriously exaggerating drug-seeking.  Hydrocodone and oxycodone are so lame, I can't understand why anyone would bother.  Maybe you should give us some credible statistics on how much drug scammers actually cost.

Report this comment
#3) On September 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM, ChrisGraley (31.45) wrote:

Thanks for the post Lordrobot, but I'm guessing that you are a doctor.

You do identify a few of the other parts of the problem, but seem to neglect the part that doctor's contribute to the problem.

In the statement below, when I say "you", I don't mean you, I mean doctors in general.

Like the fact that you purposely check in on each hospitalized patient every day for a few minutes and even though you might not even examine them, they are billed for a consultation each time. Or the fact that you hire medical billers that are "let's say creative"  and will code things to squeeze the most money out of an insurance company. Or the fact that you make agreements with the drug companies that have you perscribing a more expensive drug, when a cheaper drug may be just as effective.

And last but not least, the fact that you consider that 10 minute office visit, quality care in any scenario is amazing. No matter how good of a doctor that you are, you can not possibly think that you are gonna get a correct diagnosis on the first try in 10 minutes, let alone be able to offer any preventative care. I wouldn't take my car to a 10 minute mechanic or my dog to a 10 minute veternarian. On most days, you purposely overbook your patients so you have to cut my normal 10 minute visit down to 7 minutes.

Now it may seem like I'm attacking you here, and I'm really not. I'm just trying to point out that you should admit you are part of the problem. I know that you pay a ton for malpractice insurance, but I also know that your insurance premiums probably went up as your examination times went down.

Patient, Employer, Doctor, Drug Company, Insurance company, Malpractice Insurance company and Government have all been trying to exploit the system for way too long. No wonder that it's broken.

devoish, if you let the government control health care, you can multiply the problems by a factor of 10. Government leads to fraud period! If any one group gets more control than it has right now, it will lead to more fraud.

I'm gonna post my own little 5 minute solution and it won't fix everything, but I think it's better than anything else that I've heard.

First we need to get everyone in a group and agree that we need to fix the problem. Everyone has to agree to play a role.

Patient- Has to agree to be responsible for their own actions and to try to promote their own health.

Employer- Has to enable the patient to acheive their goal and realize that they have a financial incentive to do so. Employers really need to partner with employees if they really want cost savings. If they try to dictate behavior, they will fail.

Doctors- Need to understand that they don't have a monopoly. They actually have to consider customer service as a valid business model. They need to take the time to explain to a patient proper corrective measures. Above all, they need to submit to a system that evaluates them on the open market.

Drug companies- Need to submit to a patent system that lets other's actually make the drugs. As a reward for discovery, they get 10% of the drug price for the next 50 years, but they do not set that price, the drug manufacterors do.

Insurance companies- Need to agree to a set of standards for insurance, submit to government regulation, take an active role in reducing insurance costs and above all be graded by patient satisfaction.

Malpractice companies- I actually think that they shouldn't even exist. They don't help anyone in the long run. They settle claims that they shouldn't settle when the doctor is not at fault and fight claims that they shouldn't fight when the doctor is at fault. I think that the government should try to implement a system that sets a realistic dollar amount on the hardship of the family without awarding any punitive damages from the doctor. If the doctor should be punished for his actions, it should be in our prison system.

Goverment- I saved the worst culprit for last! The first thing that I thought of was a pact from the politicians that they can't be bribed, but that isn't going to happen. The government has to agree to place a priority on health education. They need to consider preventative care as the first priority and preventative care should be the only government sponsored health care that we should see in our lifetime. If they invest money with any drug company, they should expect a percentage of the royalties from any resulting patent. They need to spend a huge amount of money on health education. The only thing I do agree with Obama about is that we need to tax things like fat and corn syrup. We need to promote fitness and the government should team up with employers to promote it. We need tohave the surgeon general put out a nutritional game plan that isn't influenced by the food lobbyists.

None of this is actually going to happen. Our country is currently over-run by citizens that are fat, dumb, and lazy. We vote on a popularity contest and not on actual issues. Anyone supporting the current health care plan can't do basic math when it comes to paying for it. It's not the stooge that we voted in for President this time that's the problem. It's the last 5 stooges that we've voted for President put together, and the fact that every election we believe that the next guy doesn't have a political agenda.

We are Rome and Rome will fall.

 

Report this comment
#4) On September 15, 2009 at 11:35 PM, starbucks4ever (99.56) wrote:

I don't know about America, but here is how that drug seeker's case would be handled in the USSR. Every citizen had a "medical history" - a thick paper notebook (computers didn't exist back then) which contained all his medical records. The doctor would just open that notebook and send the patient home upon seeing that the same test had been done recently and didn't reveal anything. Perhaps the guy would be given the benefit of the doubt on his second visit, but 50 visits would be absolutely out of the question.

Report this comment
#5) On September 16, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Lordrobot (89.89) wrote:

Thank you for commenting on my healthcare plan. I would like to address some of the statements.

To Devoish:

1) Insurance companies do not work across state lines in the same way as normal commerce. They are heavily regulated and an insurer from Georgia may not sell a policy in say Montana. 

2) cherry picking is not the problem but the solution. There is no point in making a healthy person pay the same rate as one with lifestyle and chronic problems. The whole purpose of risk shareing is to cover the unexpected not the premeditated. A guy that smokes a pack of cigarettes a day invites illness and should not be pooled with people living a healthy lifestyle.  You can't expect the public to absorb self-destructuve behaviour into the healthcare system. 

3)  Lay off wal-mart. It is an excellent company. That the classic John Edwards line that all ills come from Wal-mart. If you don't like Wal-mart use Target either way, before you resort to fallacy attack, you need to look at the remarkable Wal-mart / target formularlies. 

4) Who you voted for is irrelevant to me. Obama has zero experince in health care, finannce, economics, or the sciences. I presume because I am an advocate of Capitalism, I am not in the Socialist camp. That assessment is absolutely correct. Gov Medicine has been a disaster. You are naive if you think socialism is the answer to anything. Capitalism is what made this nation great. Competition is good. But what surprises me most about those that support the socialist medical agenda is that the legislators that are giving you this wonderful gov medicine have opted for themselves a PPO with no limitations. If it is so good for you, why isn't it good enough for Obama and his family or Pelosi or Reid etc. That is why arguing with a socialist is pointless. They believe themselves fit to be second class citizens under a royal ruling class of professional politicians. I reject that notion out of hand.

5) Acutally the malpractice insurer would make more money if they got paid by the visit and procedure. Especially with many doctors going bald on their coverage becasue it is presently unaffordable. 

6) I see you don't like number 7 becasue you think it melds gov with the private sector to the benefit of the private sector. The USA is shackled with lots of losers. 96% of patients with chronic illnesses have lifestyle causes for their diseases. Would I have preferred self-responsibility? Sure. But this pool of people is sick and prevention as an option no longer exists. This is the one focus group that costs the most. The burden is so large that business and gov have to shoulder it unless you are willing to limit care. By using an HMO model, these patients can be followed closely and HMOs have been shown to reduce hosptiaiization where costs go through the roof. 

But you mix your metaphors and arguments. First off all patients are not equal. Some diseases are chronic and difficult to treat. COPD is difficult especially when the patient still smokes between breaths of oxygen or smokes through their tracheotomy. When do you say NO? Nobody has figured that out. So this group is a real burden and you have to do something with them or let them die. My HMO supplemented to cover their major medical hosptializations would at least reduce their cost impact on the system at large. 

Let me also say that there are places in this country where patients are teathered to ventilators and have been so treated for years. Some have been in a coma for twenty five years and undoubtedly their brains are atrophied and liquified. Yet families and the state keep them alive. Do I believe in a cut off point? Yes. At some point the costs are simplly unforseeable which is an unshoulderable burden to both private as well as the public sector. 

7) Your number 8, I presume is for humor but it makes some assumptions that are false. First not everyone is an employee. Since the 13th Amendment bans servitude, a person so oppressed by an unlikable "boss" may well decide to change jobs. If they decide to subject themselves to unpleasant things then nobody can help them. Workaholic has become a real gathering point for women who don't fare so well in competition with driven males. It has become a negative connotation. Some professions require 24 hour dedication. Medicine is one of them. Contrary to unschooled opinion, such extreme dedication does not result in a shorter lifespan or health problems. Personally I woud prefer workaholics to welfareaholics. 

Streetflame

1) Tort reform has been attempted but it never works. Capping just reduces claims but it may disallow valid claims too. The problem however is with claims that are joint and several or standard of care claims. For example a guy goes to his doctor in a comparative neglegence state. He has been coughing for three days. The doctor treats him with antibiotics. One month later the patient goes to an emergency room becaue he coughed blood. They do an x-ray and find a lung mass. The patient sues his doctor for not diagnosing the cancer on the previous visit. Says he lost treatment time. 

In a contributiory negligence state the patient's smoking history would preclude any and all liabiltiy claims. 

2) There is noting unusual about waivers of a legal right or hold harmless agrements if informed. Because of the tort lawyers we are led to believe that there is a "constitutional right" to sue for malpractice. This is not true. Even in law a client can be foreclosed from suing an attorney for malpractice if the agreement is approved by independent legal counsel. 

The idea of patient's being insured againt events is akin to uninsured motorist liability coverage. If a motorist hit you that was uninsured and you were injured how could you collect? You couldn't generally. So what is a Doctor is bald on malpractice insurance. No lawyer is going to sue that doctor because their isn't any money there. With more an more doctors opting to not have malpracice coverage, insuring the patient makes sense. But insurance is not free. And they do make car owners buy it for the privilige of driving. 

I think you have a fundamental misconception about litigation and the waiver of legal rights. There is no statement by any court calling medical care a fundamental right. Now there is a fundamental right to the denial of medical care but not to have medical care. Thus, there is no fundamental right to sue over medical care. 

My method does not depreive a patient from suing for malpractice but it allows the patient to weigh the risks and to carry their own uninsured doctors malpractice coverage. 

3) It will be impossible for me to present any arguments for tort reform or Capitalism solutions if individuals as poster #1 believes that Wal-mart is the enemy and that government health care is the solution. The whole point of my discussion is to not limit care or malpracitce suits but to attack the costs by properly attaching the party at risk. In a malpractice claim, the patient is at risk not the doctor.  The doctor may not even carry malpractice so the patient will get no compensation. Thus, the patient who wants medical care at their option, should cover themselves against a wayward outcome just as the driver covers themselves from the uninsured motorist. 

Reason also that if a fundamenal right exists to decline medical care, waivers of liability should be valid as a matter of contract if informed and if agreed by independent counsel or by statute. 

4) Because the cost is so low to the patient, perhaps a dollar for visit coverage, it is almost negligable. I do not think ward of the state should have the right to sue. Such claims by the indigents should be eliminated by soverign immunity unless otherwise provided by statute or persoanl insurance. Again the best legal concept is the uninsured motorist statues. 

5) One comment about pain killers: Lortab and percocet have huge street value. Tylox is a nice twist. It is hydrocodone but in powdered form in a capsule. It has no street value because druggies don't trust each other and will assume the drug in capsule form to be cut.  Drug seekers will argue with the doctor that Tylox doesn't work as well in an attempt to get lortabs.

6) Your comment about my #7 is interesting. I don't really like it either but there is a contingent of the population that is almost too lazy to breath unless you breath for them. Chronic illness such as HIV, COPD, Diabetes, are so expensive to treat that insurance carriers for the most part don't want anything to do with them unless they can offset costs with something that makes money. They spend billions on education and prevention for HIV yet the disease remains the most expensive disease in history to treat and belive it or not the case numbers keep rising. 

These chronically sick have to be side channeled becasue they require more care. What you want to avoid is the $200K hospitalization. So this while not optimal would save money. Remember you can't cure stupid so while most of these chronic diseases can be prevented, it takes self-discipline which sadly many do not possess. So they present to the world as "your poblem." Should we just let them die? Maybe. But that has not been the general concept of medicine. So they are a true burden and what I try to do is limit their damage to the society by cost containment. 

 

ChrisGraley

1) i found your discussion at least on point and from your own foray into trying to design a model you see what we are up against.

2) Doctors that see patients in the hospital do not get consults fees unless they do consults. Following a patient's progress is not what it seems. The doctor that sees you for 10 minutes in a hospital has already gone over your chart, read all the nursing notes and consult notes and is visiting to make sure the care plan is not tract. For example post surgery if your drains are clear, your temp is stable and your blood work within normal limits. The doctor the writes a patient note or dictates one for each visit. The patient point of view is vastly different from the doctor's point of view. A routine daily check pays zero if you have an HMO and pays roughly $35 otherwise. Sometimes the followup visit is billied as part of the whole procedure such as a gall bladder so the in hospital visits are just part of the surgery. 

3) I like your idea of trying to get everyone on the same page but that is the essence of a good business deal; everyone wins. In socialism one party wins and everyone else loses. Thanks  for your input. I sense your frustration with the elements of the system which I also share but Capitalism would work to solve healthcare for about 90% of the population.  The other 10% is just a huge burden. My rule is that 10% of any population is completely worthless and helpless. 

ZLOJ

1) I like those chef hats that the Russian doctors used to wear. I also like your comment. In the US, drug seekers are often placated and thus encouraged to abuse the sytem. They are a huge problem in the US and account for roughly 1/3 of all ER visits. Some docotrs just want to get rid of them and give them the script. Look at the case of Michael Jackson. Clearly a druggie, he dies, and suddenly the focus turns on all the doctors that have ever written him a script. Again the usual deal is everyone else is to blame for some druggies flawed lifestyle choices. 

2) Some doctors take the offensive and gather informaiton for a drug arrest. Most states have laws, though unenforced, to prosecute drug seeing as a felony. Some of the drug softies think this is extreme but the ER is a place designed for serious injury and acute illness. Every fraud in a gurney deprives a worthy patient of timely care. Any plan to fix the health care abuses must end drug seeking. 

3) There is a case that I was examining in which the woman on Medicaid, had come to the ER for Migraines 450 times over the previous 5 years. She had over 50 Cat Scans of the Brain. Each of her ER visits billed out at about $2500. The taxpayers were very generous indeed.  She wasted over 1 million taxpayer dollars getting her demerol fixes, a drug that is useless in treating migraine on balance to its dangers and addiction potential. The trap in US medicine is what happens the day this woman comes in with an aneurysm and you "assume" the 450 drug seeking migraine visits are related to the present visit. 

Report this comment
#6) On September 16, 2009 at 8:37 AM, DaretothREdux (44.98) wrote:

i would rec this twenty times if I could.

There is a politician/doctor or two that do agree wtih you completely. Namely, Ron Paul and his son Rand (who is running for senate in KY).

Dare

Report this comment
#7) On September 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM, ahoffman23 (< 20) wrote:

Your post is long and my time is short, but I passionately disagree with you so I thought I would take a moment to add a short comment.

 Re. so-called "defensive medicine."  Every government agency that has taken a serious look at whether doctors are performing scads of unnecessary tests, from the GAO to the CBO, has concluded it doesn't exist.  http://tinyurl.com/l2ow8z  Just think about it as a practical matter--in this age where 90% of those with health insurance are under "managed care" that requires outside authorization for even the most innocuous medical procedures, does it really make sense that all of these doctors would be ordering measurable volumes of medically unnecessary tests?  (And by the way, wouldn't that amount to insurance fraud?  Perhaps instead of "defensive medicine" we should call it "insurance fraud medicine.")

 Re. your "Patient pays" malpractice plan...By this logic, when consumers go out to eat, they should have to chip in a couple of extra bucks in case their food is tainted with salmonella.  In other words, you place the onus of paying for the wrongdoing on the victims, which is unbelievably backwards and unfair.  And the application of that logic to the med mal context is especially egregious, given that hundreds of thousands of patients, including children, are catastrophically injured or killed each year due to preventable medical errors.  http://tinyurl.com/lknqnc

Study after study has shown there is no link between malpractice premiums for doctors and claims made by injured patients.  http://tinyurl.com/m4qnug In fact, for the last 30 years, medical malpractice claims and premiums have been less than 1 percent of this country’s health care costs. Eliminating every single medical malpractice lawsuit, including every legitimate case, would barely make a dent in overall health care expenditures.If we’re looking to control health care costs, the only real places to look are the massively-profitable health insurance and managed care industries, and a system that is needlessly killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of patients each year due to medical errors.

 

Report this comment
#8) On September 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Lordrobot (89.89) wrote:

Ahoffman23, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I will have to address your points. I am not attacking you but your reasoninng with with which I fervently disagree.

1) Defensive medicne is a reality and in the process the doctor is justified in doing every test they order. It is only limited to the size of the doctor's brain and proportionate to their fear of malpractice. I would love to see these studies you claim exist. What you will find is that as long as the doctor can justify the procedure it will not fall outside the utilization curve. But that has no bearing as to why it is done.

2) Consider OBGYN they get sued at great frequency. I guess they must all be incompetent or having a baby is simply too dangerous to be done safely. With that in mind. Consider the number of c-section performed over time. Presently nearly 40% of all US births are by C-section. That is a combined number. Some regions like Miami Dade run upwars of 55% and some hospitals at 70%. A women with a prior C-section has an 89 to 100% chance of having a c-section at their next delivery. WHO says this number should only be about 15%. This is defensive medicine. Is it wrong? It is within the standard of care in the US. The simple bottom line is that there are more lawsuits for vaginal deliveries than c-sections. So C-secitons are done with increasing frequency.

3) So according to you, managed care is working to contain cost and overutilization. And also what does medically unneccessary mean? You mean monday morning quarterbacking where you already know the diagnosis and try to paint a direct line to the outcome? That reasoining is absurd. Further, I would remind you that getting insurance "approval" to pay for a test or procedure has nothing whatsoever to do with its medical necessity. A 56 years old man with acute onset leukemia will indeed need a bone marrow and a bone marrow transplant to be cured. But under Obamacare the test would be denied because only 30% of patients over 55 get a cure from leukemia with a stem cell transplant. But I assure you that is the only procedure that will cure the patient and if they get a second blast crisis, they will most surely die.

4) You don't like the pay for malpractice idea. I assume you don't have car insurance and don't have uninsured motorist coverage? This is the same principle. Increasing numbers of doctors have dropped malpractice coverage. They don't get sued becaue that is how sincere Tort lawyers are about helping patients. There is no money so their is no suit. With my method evey patient that wants malpractice coverage buys it. But instead of buying it in lump sum they buy it per office visit or per procedure. Why is this onnerous?

Your argumnt is that someone eating at out that eats tainted food is somehow similar. That is not the case. In the food system, each party to the meal carries liabiltiy insurance. The food processor, the eatery, plus the patron themselves could be covered by medical insurance or major medical.

If your intent is to sue, then what kind of damages are you going to get? Because this is not malpractice this is a tort of negligence. In that tort you, Mr. Plaintiff, are going to have to prove both cause in fact and legal cause. Cause in fact will be easy, the Plaintiff ate tainted food and got sick. Legal cause or proximate cause requires the plaintiff to prove that the food eaten at the eatery was tainted and it wasn't the egg they ate for breakfast. This is not malpractice so your exercise in food poisoning is apples to oranges and not applicable.

Better you should look at the drastic reductions in lawsuits and the decrease malpractice premiums in California before and after tort caps were placed on medmal. Both of your assertions prove false. Premiums and suits decreased.

Somebody has to pay for malpractice insurance if you want to allow plaintiff's the capacity to sue. A lawyer will not sue unless their is a substanital pot of money somewhere. So what is so wrong with the patient paying a dollar charge for this coverage? The doctor may not have any coverage. So this gives the patient the capacity to sue.

If the patient wants to sue where their is no coverage either self coverage or doctor, then good luck; it won't happen. So my system says make it a law that they pay for their own malpracitce coverage or they can't bring a claim. And if some guy say he can't pay or is indigent, then my system says put him as a ward of the state where he is automatically foreclosed from suit through soveign immunity. The state and taxpayers don't need to be punished or gamed by a donee. That follows the lines of no good deed goes unpunished. Enough of that.

My system doesn't reward the helpless. It makes medicine affordable for 90% of the population. The other 10% are wards of the state. 50% of present births are out of wedlock. That cost rides with the next 18 years. Taxpayers are getting killed by this gross irresponsibiltliy. These wards of the state get welfare, medicaid, wic, housing and it doesn't end. Why would I want to reward that behavior. That is exactly why we are in the mess we are in today. It is hardly a pretty picture. Where are the fathers of these wards of the state? I would pass a statute that they pay and mom pays every dime back to the Federal gov. over their lifetimes so it becomes a child rearing loan instead of a giveaway and reward for this malconduct. There is no reason for the Gov to be paying the freight on this destrutive menace to the culture.

I am not interested in the poor mouth arguments when it comes to a dollar for malpractice coverage. That is the vapid argument that medical care should be free to one and all no matter how much they abuse their bodies or the system and that they somehow have a right to sue everybody. That is medicaid and it is a bottomless pit and that is how well socialism works. I prefer personal responsibility to reckless "I'm your problem" behavior.

Report this comment
#9) On September 16, 2009 at 7:14 PM, streetflame (31.06) wrote:

You do have the right to sue anybody, as long as you have evidence.  It's not in the Constitution but it's a foundation of our common law.

The government collaborating with corporations to force us to waive our legal rights when we step into a healthcare setting would be insanely unacceptable under the current legal system.  Your idea is a much bigger threat to individual liberty than the public insurance option.

Report this comment
#10) On September 16, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Alex1963 (29.33) wrote:

You write in response to Devoish

"1) Insurance companies do not work across state lines in the same way as normal commerce. They are heavily regulated and an insurer from Georgia may not sell a policy in say Montana."

But they can. They may choose not to or have a gentleman's agreement not to but they certainly can if they want. 

Then this

"A patient comes to see a doctor and at the front window decides if they want the visit covered by medical malpractice. The cost will be a dollar or two extra. If medical malpractice results from that visit, then they may have the right to sue for damages. This will work the same way for surgeries but the cost would be more like ten or twenty dollars. If the patient declines coverage then they are foreclosed from suing PERIOD! They sign a note to that effect. It is just that simple."

I can tell you why no one in congress responds. It's goofy. Unless it were compulsory why wouldn't Drs simply refuse to treat anyone wanting to contribute to an "I might sue fund"? Would patients request the option knowing they might be literally treated differently? Second they would sign a "note"? LOL You are really soft soaping that one. That "note" would likely be 6 pages and incomprehensible after your lawyer got thru making sure it covered your butt. You've been successfully sued I'm guessing. 

Then this gem

"But what surprises me most about those that support the socialist medical agenda is that...They believe themselves fit to be second class citizens under a royal ruling class of professional politicians. I reject that notion out of hand." 

Hey, no one but us members get to read the Healthcare For A Secret Socialist Utopia handbook! How'd you get a copy?

While I appreciate being not only insulted by you that I feel inferior but also then being told I actually am in this statement. That's not easy and is admirably snarky. Nice. But surprisingly I reject your solipsist argument that by supporting heath care reform with a strong public OPTION I am therefor a "socialist" along with the entirety of your world view. To be blunt again this whole "plan" of yours would very appealing to those who fancy themselves better, smarter, healthier, more disciplined and therefor entitiled to the best heath care deal. Basically and bluntly; smug elitists.  

Then I got down to this absolutely shocking statement and frankly IMHO it effectively makes all the rest of your arguments suspect even the half way reasonable sounding ones.

"These wards of the state get welfare, medicaid, wic, housing and it doesn't end. Why would I want to reward that behavior. That is exactly why we are in the mess we are in today. It is hardly a pretty picture. Where are the fathers of these wards of the state? I would pass a statute that they pay and mom pays every dime back to the Federal gov. over their lifetimes so it becomes a child rearing loan instead of a giveaway and reward for this malconduct. There is no reason for the Gov to be paying the freight on this destrutive menace to the culture. I am not interested in the poor mouth arguments when it comes to a dollar for malpractice coverage. That is the vapid argument that medical care should be free to one and all no matter how much they abuse their bodies or the system and that they somehow have a right to sue everybody. That is medicaid and it is a bottomless pit and that is how well socialism works. I prefer personal responsibility to reckless "I'm your problem" behavior."

I have edited out what I wrote after this. I'm going to think about it some more before I maybe post it because I was pretty harsh. I'm sure you deserve better. But I was frankly shocked to read that statement here in "public" much less from a Dr.

So instead here's a recent clip from from Colbert Report which includes the priceless (paraphrased) line from Stephen

"OK sell me on healthcare but remember; I'm rich, I already have insurance, and I don't care about other people."

I hope it amuses 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/247477/september-14-2009/better-know-a-lobby---health-care-for-america-now 

Best 

Alex 

 

 

Report this comment
#11) On September 16, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Lordrobot (89.89) wrote:

I appreciate your comments but sarcasm is a fallacy so argue the point not play to the audience.

To streetflame:

1) this is statutory law not common law. Common law is the MBE multistate exam not reality. People waive there legal right to sue all the time. In fact, it is regarded as consideration in a contract or in a dealing. As I pointed out previously to you, In law, a client may waive his rights to sue as long as he accepts the invitation to have independent legal counsel advise. If he agrees to this and then does not seek outslde counsel and goes forward with the waiver then the waiver is binding.

2) My discussion is not about a public option but about capitalism. My discussion which you failed to absorb is how does one obtain medmal coverage in the ever increasing world of doctors that go bald from coverage. In otherwords sue your head off; if there is no money you get nothing. No legal firm is ever going to engage in an expensive medmal case with no pot of money. So my concept is to allow anyone to buy if for an office visti or a procedure. To protect themselves in the same way as a motorist protects themselves from uninsured drivers. So it really is impossilble for me to link any reasoning with you because you have a very limited understanding of the law and medicine. Thank you for taking the time to respond but this interaction is going nowhere.

Alex Thanks but grow up.

1) Health Insurance companies are not allowed to cross state lines unless they move inside the state and comply with all state insurance laws. They are universally forced to register and have offices in the state where they sell health insurance. Medicare can cross state lines and insurance coverge once installed travels with the patient. What I am referring to is the use of the commerce clause to promote absolute unfettered access to states by insurance companies. Libs hate competition so they don't like this idea. But Capitalist don't like paying for abusive losers and don't feel obligated to pay for some smoker's lung transplant.

2) You Alex are goofy. Dr. are not opposed to malpracitce. The name malpractice is misleading it might be better to think of this as accident insurance. If something were to happen to a patient, an accident in which they were injured, Doctors want that patient to be compensated but not for a frivolous claim and not to the detriment of the Doctor. All medmal is, is a service to help patients. Unfortunately with lawyers in the mix, many claims are not broght because the doctor has no malpractice insurance and therefore the lawyers will not take the case. So you see goofy, this is a service for the patient that they pay for in the same light as a motorist pays for uninsured motorist coverage. They used to sell passenger insurance for aircraft crashes in vending macines in airports. Same principle. But libs really have a problem with the concept but it couldn't be more straightforward. Capitalist generrally protect themselves where as socialist generally expect somebody else to protect them.

3) No state forces Doctors to carry malpracitce coverage and malpractice insuracne is very expensive. In Miami OBGYN coverage is 180K a year. You going to pay for that for the Doctor goofy? Dr. practices run at a 90% overhead. There is no profit in these businesses. That Dr. pays that malpractice before he sees his first patient. Because of all the suits the cost of malpracitce insurance has gone out of reach. And as I have said many times before... if the business of being a doctor is so dangerous that it can never be done safely then medicine should be outlawed entirely.

4) Listen goofy there is no discussion here. Your anti-doctor sentiments and anti-lawyers sentiments are quite enough you are just yapping. The gov option already exists and it is called Medicaid. It's a total failure in ever state. If it were up to me, I wouldn't pay a dime for anyone's insurance but my own. I think it is obscene in this country that a couple with children have to pay for the healthcare of welfare slugs to the detriment of their own self-care. Only libs could dream up such a system. But what really fascinates me about the libs in this argument is the fact that your politial leaders, those marvelous professional politicians are designing a sytem for you but keeping their own PPO which you also get to pay for. So if this is so wonderful, why aren't they also going to participate? Because they think the taxpayer is a moron. Of course they don't include themselves in that catagory since most of libs in Congress are tax evaders.

Report this comment
#12) On September 17, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Alex1963 (29.33) wrote:

Lordrobot (a fine and suitable name BTW)

I am grown up. That's why I have my own opinions that are not in the least influenced by your bullying style. Further, I have made it all the way to my mid 40s without a shred of the disgust and aversion you have spewed all over this blog for what may actually be your some own patients and certainly our fellow worthy, though in most cases disadvantaged, Americans. Most Dr's swear to the Hippocratic Oath but maybe there's a Hypocritic Oath you can adhere too instead? "1st, have no pity?"

 You know the New England Journal of Medicine just did their own poll of 2000 practitioners and released the results 9/14/09. The main findings were that

" a large majority of respondents (78%) agreed that physicians have a professional obligation to address societal health policy issues. Majorities also agreed that every physician is professionally obligated to care for the uninsured or underinsured (73%), and most were willing to accept limits on reimbursement for expensive drugs and procedures for the sake of expanding access to basic health care (67%" 

Tellingly, it goes on to disclose "Finally, the 28% of physicians who consider themselves conservative were consistently less enthusiastic about professional responsibilities pertaining to health care reform." 

Ah the beating (but artificial) heart of far too many in the conservative party. You are entitled to your obvious strong opinions of course but thank god most Dr's do not share your views, at least according to this poll.

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1785&query=home 

" Health Insurance companies are not allowed to cross state lines unless they move inside the state and comply with all state insurance laws. They are universally forced to register and have offices in the state where they sell health insurance."

How awful. Offices? Register? Comply with state requirements? In exchange for millions in potential profits? It's a wonder they make any money at all. Or stay open in the states they do operate in. They don't poach in each others back yards. By choice. Period. Lame rebuttal.

"Libs hate competition so they don't like this idea."  

Yeah OK. I'm really going to waste time refuting that ridiculous statement. I gave you 2 very good reasons why I think your "patient co-pay for malpractice" is a bad idea. That's all you got? Weak rebuttal #2 + world class sidestep. It's apparent even my rather rmild choice of "goofy" to describe your personal cost cutting measure has set you off. I should have just called it what it is. Stupid.

"Listen goofy there is no discussion here. Your anti-doctor sentiments and anti-lawyers sentiments are quite enough you are just yapping."  

I have no issue with Drs or lawyers. I call many my friends. Just not the self serving, & cynical ones hiding a contempt for vast swaths of their fellow man beneath a transparent veneer of practicality while worshipping at the shrine of the free market. Not a one of them would support some of the outrageous sentiments, ideas or vitriol you avow and defend in this blog, Yap yap 

"most of the lib in Congress are tax evaders" 

And your source for this statement is ? Some are. Some Repubs too. While far too many Repubs are panderers, adulterers, homophobes, bigots, hypocrites, military service dodgers ad nauseum.  The crucial difference is that Libs/Dems don't pretend to be the party of Family Values, Patriotism and Freedom. I'll see your "thousand points of light/compassionate conservatism"and raise you a thousand pointing fingers of contempt, blame, lies and baseless fear.

On right wing radio and cable we have outright lies and demagoguery. Hannity, Beck, Limberger, O'Really, Palin, Cluster Fox, Savage, Liddy, and on and on. Their latests attempts along with actual serving senators and congress people to smear and fear? Pregnant mothers and now kids with disabilities! After already targeting seniors, veterans, anyone with elderly parents are who may be planning to be elderly themselves one day (death panels). Abortion, illegal immigrants There are plenty of rational, non-imflammatory ways to debate and disagree on the proposals. Plenty of very defensible positions to take yet the ranting and raving and tactics is, in way too many cases, just way over the top. And it began nearly right from the get go. What's the matter do conservatives think bi-partisanship means minority rule? That they'd be able to virtually gut the proposals of a democratically elected majority? And if they don't get their concessions immediately that's license to use any tactic to achieve their ends? It would seem so.

"Medicaid. It's a total failure in ever state"  

Really? I grant you it's having funding issues but I would not in any way say it is a failure. The vast majority of Medicare recipients love it and don't want it messed with. Or are seniors welfare slugs, too? I understand Washington state is so efficient it actually helps to fund the rest of the country and they aren't the only one. Not all states are "failures" at delivering or staying within the medicare budgets. I heard someone point out on Charlie Rose recently that part of the issue with the initial funding projections for Medicare and indeed the entire industry of healthcare is that 40 years ago there were no MRIs, artificial limbs, transplants, drugs and so many other amazing but expensive advancements that are considered standard of care now. Does that mean we shouldn't have even tried? Not in my view. We just need to figure this disparity/funding/cost containment out but in a civil and good faith manner.

"The name malpractice is misleading it might be better to think of this as accident insurance. " 

That is really funny. How about "bad outcome insurance" You owe me if you use that because it's better than yours. LOL. Let's not call it "embezzling" either. Let's call it "involuntary lending" You get so passionate about personal responsibility here and yet you think "malpractice'" is misleading? Or too harsh? Sure sometimes a Dr makes an honest mistake but sometimes they are incompetent. Sometimes a stock advisor makes an error in judgment but sometimes they swindle people. But "mal" practice just means literally "bad" practice. Intent or skill is not inferred there I don't think. More the outcome. 

Lastly, you have some what I and I think are some  pretty extreme and disheartening opinions especially for someone in the medical field. I imagine that you once had high ideals and a real desire to help and heal your fellow man. Maybe you still do but it's hard to reconcile what must have been at least part of your earlier idealism and sacrifice with the philosophy you bring to this blog. I don't know what happened but I'm guessing it was pretty awful. You have some creative ideas that IMHO are hamstrung when you present them along with your disparaging views of the very people you are, at least in part, professing to try and help. 

Best of luck

Goofy Yapper

Report this comment
#13) On September 19, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Lordrobot (89.89) wrote:

Goofy Yapper... Yawn... Thanks for the Confession. It is truly wonderful that you are so proud of your humility and such a wonderul caring liberal. I am shocked that you didn't just hand out the timely and well place "race card" as jimmy carter your standard barer did last week... only to be mistreated by Obama as a leper. Life is indeed thankless for liberals.

Always nice to have someone "figure me out" but you are wrong. I am a Physicist and was educated at CalTech. Trust me on this, my mind starts long after yours is gasping for air and swelling from the strain.

Perhaps I am ecocentric or even centrocentric but I have never quite reasoned why liberals think they have a right to steal from productive hard working people and give to the losers.

My math and science skills put me quite apart from others. My superior reasoning capacity tells me that I am responsible first for myself than if I want, to the benefit of those I want to help. I have no built-in duty to strangers. I do not think the mere fact that I see further and understand more complexity obligates me to carry the dead weight of a society on my back.

You may thrive on your good nature to distribute food to the poor but in that equation, the farmer, not you the do-gooder, is essential to your virtue. If not for the farmer, you would have no gifts to which your virtue could even exist. Try leaving the charity of the world to liberals and the poor would all starve to death becaue the act of producing must exist primarily, or there is nothing to distribute, including virtue to the liberals. More simply, liberals in this equation are merely a null set.

The health care profession is the same as any enterprise. Doctors provide a service which you can't provide. Yet you want to get your two cents of virtue by forcing the doctor to treat patients of your choosing for no benefit to themselves other than the desire to make you feel better about yourself. Everyone in medicine should be falling over themselves for that opportunity.

So when I suggested in an elementary way that our discussion had come to a terminal end, I was speaking of your departure into the world of fallacy. Don't take it personally, you have no reason whatsoever to believe that you can possibly know how I think about anything. You accuse me of being a bully yet it was you that came to my post and decided to bring your fallacies along. Right Goofy? Go away and set up your moral spring gun somewhere else.

Report this comment
#14) On September 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM, johnhenr (81.92) wrote:

Lordrobot, I have absoultely savored your posts.  You put the loony leftist in their place, excpet they're to igNorant to understand that.  Isn't IT amazing how liberals are so generous with EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY?  Just a bunch of common thieves.  They wouldn't dare take your money themselves, so they allow the government to do it at the point of a gun.  And of course, no loony liberal rant would be complete without attacking Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and so forth.  So very tiresome.  Pardon me for asking, but are you a Libertarian?  Certainly sound like one.

Report this comment
#15) On September 20, 2009 at 12:33 AM, johnhenr (81.92) wrote:

Hey Alex1963, are you one of those goofy liberals with the receding hairline and the ridiculous ponytail?  Have you ever heard the saying, "Keep your mouth shut and nobody knows you're a fool. Open it and remove all doubt"  Sound advice.  You should take it, you moron.

Report this comment
#16) On September 20, 2009 at 5:44 PM, Alex1963 (29.33) wrote:

 johnhenr 

John is it? 

LOL I've never been accused of being a Libertarian before. No definitely not. 

Democrat, no ponytail, small business owner now retired. But thanks for asking.

Are you a fat, gun toting, blue collar redneck? OK then let's move on.

Despite the juvenile attack I'll point out that I'm also being "generous" with my own money. No one is proposing that only low IQ Fox drones pay for a little more social justice and equity. But it's a thought. Maybe a Fox Facts Tax. If you can't tell the difference between a lie and a fact and don't bother to research before you act your taxes go up. Or if you can't differentiate a cynical, manipulative, blowhard paranoia merchant who believes the end justifies the means and a news commentator who attempts some semblance of fairness then you simply must pay more taxes. Or better lose your right to vote. Was it Alexander Hamilton who said "the people are a beast" when referring to giving the masses the popular vote? Well who ever did say must have been picturing that beast as a FOX.  It's not my fault those people are idiots or are so blinded by fear or hate they can't distinguish fantasy from reality. Maybe hitting them in their wallets will help. It seems to be the only motivator the vast majority of these misanthropes do respond to besides taking every opportunity to impugn the character of anyone unfortunate enough to be poor or in need. Maybe a Republican style tax credit for the same thing.  I'll get right on this. More personal responsibility for willful ignorance!

Further, and not that you likely care, I don't support a progressive agenda because it enriches me or makes me more powerful or to be coddled by a socialist bureaucracy. I support them because I believe in the Golden Rule, acknowledge as fact that too many rural and urban poor, women, minorities and so on are just too powerless to make their lives much better, and that very powerful interests would like to keep it that way. I'm happy to do my part with tax dollars, my time, political advocating, voting, and charity work and donations. Probably just like you, I hope. And no gov't gun is visible to me. Just the ones at the the president's rallies lately.

And FWIW I have never supported the kind of frenzied, hateful attacks like we're seeing lately even when I started to distrust Bush more and more. In fact I was convinced he was a well meaning twit before 9/11 but after that I vocally supported him for actually way too long. Then the evidence of that whole Iraq pig in poke came clear and I began to voice my supsicions and bias anew. But never like you see on Fox. Heck, even Ed Schultz of the Ed Show makes me squirm when he goes over the top-too often. And he's the most "extreme" of the mainstream liberal commentators that I know of anyway. And he still isn't even in the ballpark with the vitriol and outright lies routinely spewed by the Faux News cabal.  I like my news and commentary fair and based in reality, I like the pundits I follow to admit when they a wrong or take a bad position and if they have a dissenting voice on the show I like them to be treated with respect and be allowed to talk. I like them to back up their positions, investigating or commentary with ethical journalism. I don't beieve all the Tea Party or Obama critics are ignorant, bigoted or full of hate. I think it's wrong to take that view and certainly from progressive commentators. But on Fix News I see O'Reilly stoking the hate against Dr Tiller and then repeatedly denying it after Tiller was killed. Even when you can see clips of him calling Tiller the Baby Killer!? That is irresponsible and unforgivable. Beck saying quite seriously that he'd like to strangle Michael Moore and musing if he could do it himself or hire someone. This can't be comedy to anyone right? I could go on and on with every commentator you named. Outrageous and inflammotory rhetoric designed to inflame fans with the thinnest veneer of facts or objectivity. These people are dangerous. Or at least act and say dangerous things too often and then rarely if ever admit to it. They just point out what they deem as being equally bad behavior on the left which is often no where near the same level of intensity. They may even be factually true in some cases but still rarely do these folks then admit their own fault. It's like a right wing blind spot. Or party arrogance. If people didn't seem to take them seriously as respectable commentators it'd be no big deal-free speech is great. Bloviate on I say. But too many people do take these demagogues quite literally. In fact it seems if you get your news from Cluster Fox, you are statistically far less likely to get news from any other source except the same drivel on the internet

. Maybe you aren't a 'typical" viewer/fan. Maybe you think some of their antics are way over the top or out of bounds. but I rarely see that acknowledged by their fans and I think that's why so many of us on the left are worried. And why aren't more Republicans or Libertarians or whover watches these nut jobs discouraging this more forcefully or at all? Is it because viewers/listeners can't tell the difference or because they just don't care? Is it because certain people cannot ever admit that their positions can be wrong, even sometimes? So if you like Rush he's good to go no matter what? Even if he advocates for segregated buses? It would seem Bush and Cheney governed that way. Never admit a mistake and in fact attack when questioned. At best it's juvenile and unproductive and immature IMO.  And between these fans and their Republican handlers not knowing better or not caring honestly don't know which scenario would be worse.

Alex 

Report this comment
#17) On September 20, 2009 at 6:28 PM, johnhenr (81.92) wrote:

Alex1963, not only are you a moron, YOU ALSO CAN'T READ! I was asking LORDROBOT if he was a Libertarian, not you, you raving liberal lunatic!  You're probably the average far left lunatic liberal who understands neither economics or capitalism.   And as LordRobot pointed out, your ad hominen attacks are petty and rather boring.

You were a business owner? You can't be serious - what did you sell - Birkenstocks or some other hippy product?  Since you hate capitalism so much, hope you gave your products away and DIDN'T MAKE AN EVIL PROFIT!  And no, I'm not a gun toting redncek. I a criminal defense attorney from California with a JD from Santa Clara University.  Yes, I defend black people and Mexicans and other criminals, many of whom are minorities.  And yes, I proudly own many hanguns and sufficient emmo to use with them.  I proudly served my country in the military, something I know you wouldn't understand.  Probably too busy protesting....

I see you've been reading the Democrat playbook again. Social justice, equality, progressie agenda, blah, blah,blah.... Ho hum.... socialism, communism, steal from the rich and give to the poor, powerless minorites, women and children, homeless bums, blah, blah, blah..... Man, don't you ever get tired of spouting the same old nonsense... THE 1960's ARE OVER, GET OVER IT, DUDE!

I'm not going to respond to the rest of you tiresome post because it's the same old liberal crap. Fox News bad, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. liberal media, nauseum. Rush Limbaugh bad, any liberal newsgoon good. Make up stories about things Rush never said because the liberal media said they're true.

And what a role model... good ole George Tiller, who killed babies in the third trimester. Oh yeah, I'm sure God has a nice place all picked out for Georgie Boy.   I know you don't belive in God, but too bad, he exists.

And for your information, I'm pro choice.  It's just that too many women use abortion as a method of birth control instead of getting readily available contraceptives and then wait until the third trimester to have their babies killed.  With ultrasound technology, you can find out if the baby has any abnormalities way before the third trimester.

Basically, why don't you get lost, pal.  You're simply a liberal no nothing who hates capitalism and the free market.  I don't even know why you on a website such as the MotleyFool.  This site is for capitalists and entrepeneurs who love the free market and MAKING MONEY!  Why don't you just go to Cuba or China?  Oh, because if you spoke out there, they'd kill you.   Moron.

Report this comment
#18) On September 20, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Alex1963 (29.33) wrote:

 Lordrobot 

I assume you meant egocentric and standard bearer?  

No I thought Carter was out of line and not even correct. Not that you care.  

 Trust me on this, my mind starts long after yours is gasping for air and swelling from the strain.  I'm sure. Just not on Caps for one obvious comparison. 

We don't think we can steal. Are you dense or just mentally blocked on this? We vote for change and when we have a majority those changes happen and the same gov't that you might have voted for to cut off benefits for "losers" now redresses that wrong. Boo hoo for you I guess. 

The rest of your arguments are equally ridiculous. You may or may not be what you say but I'll debate you anytime with my high school diploma because you frankly have barely make a coherent point since you responded to me.

For instance: There are liberal Drs and even liberal Physicists all who contribute to society without having to be farmers and who may even shockingly choose to contribute their income to society for the greater good. And direct their gov't to focus more of the collective resources on societal inequities voted into law by previous majorities of people who think just like you.  Some of us feel that by helping others along and having more people able to get past struggling for every meal we actually then all become a more productive society. There's less losers for you to carry on your unwilling back. You're selfish. Think how much easier your own sorry life would be with less detritus for you to support. It's a long range view and looks beyond this years tax returns so maybe that's a stretch for a short term angry axe grinder like yourself. You'd obviously rather disparage those you feel are beneath you today than maybe be thinking how you can profit both them and yourself at the same time for tomorrow. Stick it to the inept and lazy as you see it. But let's see if an analogy appropriate to this venue might help. People are like companies or resources. It takes capital in to make them grow and become productive. It's a rare company that's get's off the ground with just one person efforts and resources. But people are also a great resource. Almost no one gets wealthy on just their own efforts they have to recruit help. Even the poor, uneducated, and the dumb. Most people want and need to contribute. You invest in them and you can personally profit. Not all because some are truly chronically lazy or dishonest or have a severe deficiency and may never rise to anything but they aren't worthless. They make great laborers and physicists. But some like you maybe think it's all a competition or natural selection. If someone is not immediately or obviously successful or self sufficient or beneficial to you personally you'd cut them off and figure it's for their own good. If you even care of course. More likely it's for your own good and you don't car who knows it. Good for you. It's good to be comfortable in your reptile skin. Some people advocate Tough Love. Others prefer Tough Sh*t. I think I know your camp. But your kind are doomed anyway because the world is past jungle competition and eliminating the weak in order for the strong to get the limited resources and survive and breed. In 100 years I wouldn't be surprised if people will be genetically de-selecting your ilk for their own safety.

So yes, I'm sure that you absolutely don't understand it & likely never will. Intellect with no compassion has severe limitations. Someone who thinks they are smarter and has, dare I say liberal, doses of bias and deep seated anger are even more challenged. And, by virtue of this post, I think I can state quite comfortably that I understand how you think on some things. And you're not all that mysterious or opaque or complex from I read. You're just kind of a run of the mill jerk which anyone can aspire to be with out any formal training at all. 

Lastly, Yes, I did come here because you posted on healthcare (or at least health I think we can drop the pretense of "care") where people can read and comment, even liberals and I read the whole thing and I commented. What was I thinking? Oh yeah I remember because (in case you were too busy measuring dark matter) on the system at MF- that's how it works. So sorry I couldn't slaver all over you. I was too busy barfing. You couldn't be so naive to think no one would dare to challenge your views right? But if you don't like it I suggest that from now on you post on Igotminescrewyou.com with other like minded Neanderthals where you will no doubt be named lord and king of all robots. 

The rest of what you write is equally specious, short sighted, cruel, intellectually and morally stunted and not worthy of a response. Feel free to try harder. I haven't even broken a sweat yet. 

Report this comment
#19) On September 21, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Alex1963 (29.33) wrote:

johnhen

Whoa buddy, I can almost see the spittle. Ok My mistake. I can see why you'd get so upset LOL

I'd say that here on Caps at least I have a demonstrably better understanding than you of capitalism, economics and market forces. Oh and I may or may not be an astronaut/karate master/geneticist. You may be lawyer. If so and you defend the people you say I applaud you. That's a respectable career in my book, again not that you probably care. 

Good for you for being in the military. So was my bother. I supported his choice and if you really did serve I appreciate what you did. So screw you to, I guess. 

I owned a real estate office so yes you could say I gave away my services all the time. I also owned a few investment properties. But I'm retired so something worked out OK. Now I trade my stock portfolio. So I think I'll stick around MF. Thanks for asking. 

Actually the 80's are over, get over that 

Make up stories about things Rush never said because the liberal media said they're true. No they actually are true. Rush is a pinhead and doesn't seem to realize there are tapes of everything he says. When the choice is believe Rush denying he said what I just heard him say on tape or TV for some reason I don't believe Rush or the rest of those amnesiac Tourette's blowhards. I've heard them and he and they think so highly of fans like you they know you'll forgive or forget before your nap time. I guess only us liberal keep the tapes.

Yes I don't believe in the god you believe in I'm certain of that.

Tiller did abide by the actual law. Does that have any meaning for you as a lawyer or even a Christian or only when it suits your religious beliefs? Don't you folks believe your God will judge him or isn't he up to it or too busy? Or did he direct some nut job you to take matters into his own hands and murder him in church. Oh that's right it was sanctioned by Fox News. God's megaphone on earth. I have clips. Would you like me to post them?

And for your information, I'm pro choice.  It's just that too many women use abortion as a method of birth control instead of getting readily available contraceptives and then wait until the third trimester to have their babies killed.  With ultrasound technology, you can find out if the baby has any abnormalities way before the third  trimester. We have something in common. I actually agree with most of this. So hey "pal" protest abortion all you want. Get 3rd term abortionists shut down thru legal means all you want. That's your right. I hope you are for sex education and readily available contraception as well to help reduce the numbers of these unwanted pregnancies. But just so I understand; you are pro choice but not in the 3rd trimester and God will punish only those who abort that late? When does God say the cut off is for abortionist hell? I can't find that here in my King James.  

Basically, why don't you get lost, pal.  You're simply a liberal no nothing who hates capitalism and the free market.  I don't even know why you on a website such as the MotleyFool.  This site is for capitalists and entrepeneurs who love the free market and MAKING MONEY!  Why don't you just go to Cuba or China?  Oh, because if you spoke out there, they'd kill you.   Moron

ROFL. That's Mr Know nothing to you. And this site is actually full of people with some seriously weird views. Conspiracy theorists, the HypnoToad (all glory) and folks who apparently do little or no investing. So that last paragraph was really eloquent and insightful and a strong closing argument. What kind of law do you practice, Murphy's? Or is it really none?

Good for you for defending LordRobot. He needs the help. 

 

 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement