What a pleasure it is to get some rational and positive feedback. Quite a change from the Kingman Daily Miner where most people are narrow-minded, ignorant bigots who believe Obama ought to be shot. To be even-handed about it, this is the heart of redneck country so I guess it's to be expected.
DON, it's only 10,500 words. That's about a 22 page pamphlet. This IS the Reader's Digest condensed version. My first draft was over 30,000 words. But I'm glad you're in favor of disconnecting health insurance from employment. That's too much control and power to give to one's boss be it a multi-national conglomerate or a mom & pop operation. There are numerous other reasons too, but mainly I'm hoping the idea catches on. I was 25 years in the legal profession and saw first hand the greed of attorneys in going after punitive damages which are generally treble the actual damages, of which the attorney got between 1/3rd and 50% of the actual award plus attorney fees from the losing side, so I was long primed to support tort reform. I know one attorney who would not take a case unless it were an easy slam-dunk (which meant I did all the work on the case and he got most of the money) or the case had potential for enormous punitives. I'm sorry but I can feel neither any sympathy for big pharma or the insurance companies nor for any support of them. Between the two they add up to the biggest sources of greed in the healthcare industry. The legal drugs I'm taking would cost me over $1,000 a month if I wasn't covered. The hoops pharma makes you jump through to get assistance from them is mind boggling. Paper work up the yinny and every three months I'd have to reprove my poverty. Babies being born in the street in front of a hospital is nothing new. Hospitals also have a nasty habit of dumping poverty cases back out on the street regardless their inability to fend for themselves and their sickened condition. One other point with regard illegals. Hardly any of them are drawing Social Security, most of them pay taxes because it's taken out of their paychecks (and frequently pocketed by the employer), and they can't vote. The only exception to the above is when they have falsified ID which gives them a SS number but even then they still can't draw SS. Nor am I a blind faith believer in our current administration. I do have high hopes for Obama as a leader both now and in his future, but I don't glom onto everything he says without a critical eye. My main complaint at the moment is that he has only told Congress in a very general way what he wants in a healthcare bill and is leaving it up to them to come up with something valid, but I suspect he is getting tired of their childish games and in this upcoming speech to them next week will straighten them out. He seems to prefer the soft touch but I think he'll get pretty rough with them this time. As for government involvement, remember that depends to a huge degree on the administration in power at the time. Bush virtually dissolved all regulation and let his agencies run wild, which they did. RIGSY, my first draft contained things like nuclear family problems, stress from both parents working, the effects of poverty and other thoughts but in the interest of brevity (though some would question whether 10k words is brief) I left a lot out that didn't directly bear on the healthcare issues. It was originally written just for publication on the Daily Miner which is what prompted me to eliminate the poverty aspect. Most of the readers in this community think that people in poverty should do the world a favor and walk out into the desert and die. JUSTIN, I never meant for my article to be a comparison to any health plan proposed by the administration or Congress. I tried to take an independent approach that highlighted the problems with healthcare as I saw it independently from any other analyses. As for rationing, we have that now and to a very large degree except it's called raising premiums, deductibles and co-pays, eliminating conditions covered, dropping people's insurance if they get an incurable disease and other such immoral practices. Have you ever known anyone with end-stage renal disease? They can't get coverage from any insurance company because of the huge expense entailed. In fact that's the first question insurers ask a potential client: Do you have end-stage renal disease? I put little blame on the actual medical providers. I think most of them do a great job in spite of being under a lot of pressure from government and healthcare and malpractice insurers to burn the candle at both ends ... i.e., don't order so many diagnostic procedures but cover their asses to protect against malpractice suits. They can't do both. However doctors are in business to make a living besides providing care for the sick and ill, and most hospitals and clinics are in business to make a profit even if a lot of them are not, yet the bind forced on them by pharma and insurance turns a lot of them into criminals because they have to cheat to make enough to cover their overhead and still make a reasonable living. I think a doctor's average earnings of $250,000 to $300,000 a year to be very reasonable given the cost and length of their education and their critical need by society. In the statement you quoted from the Harvard Business Review the key phrase is "unblinking faith" which is foolish business in any field. A certain degree of doubt and questioning is a healthy practice for all individuals. As for the healthcare industry, there is little in the way of competition which I think would be very healthy for all concerned. And of course as I have mentioned myself numerous times, were human beings able to function without misbehavior any system would work well. RETIREDJIM, torts cover more than just the healthcare field. Torts are any civil wrongs committed by anyone, anytime, anyplace and if there is a breach of the implied contract of dealing in good faith punitive damages apply. Overall, I'm in favor of rational and limited regulation -- just enough to prevent the excesses of the past few decades from occurring again for quite a while. Regulation is necessary to govern greed but it must be doled out carefully because over-regulation or the wrong kind can kill the heart of a free-market economy -- competition. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
