China unveils massive health care plan.

[Bigb23]

I'd post more, but they seem to be going after people posting any articles on forums and blogs.
China seems to be making an effort to establish themselves as a stronger manufacturing juggernaut then they are now.
We better do something soon in this country about health care, or we'll never catch up.

SHANGHAI – China pledged to expand medical insurance and build thousands of hospitals and clinics over the next three years, the first steps in a decade-long plan to repair an ailing health-care system that has fueled popular discontent.

Under the new plan, government subsidies for insurance premiums aim to extend at least basic coverage to 90% or more of China's 1.3 billion people within three years. By 2020, the government says, all citizens should have access to basic health services. The proportion of medical expenses covered by insurance will increase over time, and prices of so-called essential drugs will be pushed down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1239...googlenews_wsj

[ccbatson]

Good luck with that China. Got a history book handy?

[ccbatson]

Check India out for a roadmap of where you are headed China.

Coverage for all!! No real service for anyone unless they pay for it on the black market.

[Flanders]

Check India out for a roadmap of where you are headed China.

Coverage for all!! No real service for anyone unless they pay for it on the black market.

Yeah, China, like the US, should embrace the objectivist ideal of a completely privatized, for-profit free-market conservative approach to healthcare, and abandon any evil and corrupt socialistic methods that would severely dilute quality coverage and treatment for those who obviously are far more deserving of it. Why should, .for example, a lowly ditch-digger, be entitled to the same degree of quality healthcare and insurance coverage, as a business owner??

Furthermore, each individual seeking heathcare coverage and/or treatment should also be triaged based on a thorough review of their present AND future finances/creditworthiness/health/age, due to the nature of their infirmity or infirmities that they have now or may become susceptible to in the future. Denial of coverage and medical treatment will have the effect of "culling the herd" and prevent abuse and most importantly, greatly increase future profits for the insurers and their stockholders

[Bigb23]

^^^^ Isn't that petty much what we have now ? ^^^^

Another sarcasm alert !

[Flanders]

^^^^ Isn't that petty much what we have now? ^^^^

Another sarcasm alert !

The US still needs to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and "non-profit" HMOs and PPOs, in order to further "purify" the heathcare coverage system in the US., I believe that the Heritage Foundation's ideas, and ex-POTUS candidate John McCain's proposal would [[or in McCain's plan, would have) led the US far more quickly in that direction.

[ccbatson]

1. Propaganda [[sorry Rb...true biased information to justify a failing entitlement). Efficient enterprises do not see escalating costs and declining quality/access on the way to insolvency.

2. Canada both directly, and indirectly ration health care. What do you think a wait time of 12 months for an arthroplasty is?

3. Totally wrong, why? easy, delay the diagnostic test [[MRI) and expedite the surgery...if the person isn't already dead by the time you get the results.

4. Our uninsured have better access to care than Canadians do.

[rb336]

1. Propaganda [[sorry Rb...true biased information to justify a failing entitlement).

Bats, your inner self just slipped up and admitted that truth has a liberal bias
oh, and it isn't propoganda, it is hard, cold fact

4. Our uninsured have better access to care than Canadians do.

that is just laughably idiotic

[oladub]

Jaberwocky: "No one - not even Newt Gingrich - is saying that we do not have a problem with our current health care system. The question is what are we going to do about it?"

Answer: Make it affordable! Given: Affordable health care is not necessarily a subset of government health care. Government health care is not necessarily affordable. Single payer heath care as provided by Canadian provinces and Scandinavian countries is affordable but that is not what the President is proposing.

Next question: How can health care be made affordable? Here are a couple of ideas.

1) Tort reform. Reducing legal costs would significantly reduce health insurance costs and paperwork for providers and patients. This in turn would reduce administrative paperwork.

2) Allow or encourage cash only primary care. This tends to reduce routine doctor visits to about $50 or about half of what most of us pay where it is offered.

3) Allow individuals to make more of their own pharmaceutical and health care choices. Make more drugs available over the counter. Don't try to make vitamins illegal [[Hillary and McCain had been pushing this for their corporate patrons). Allow pharmaceuticals from Canada, Cuba, etc. to be imported.

4) Encourage and allow Americans to get medical treatment in Cuba, India, or wherever else they could save tens of thousands of dollars for the same procedure.

5) Encourage or allow cut rate sort of big box specialty procedure places. For instance, a cat scan facility could be set up in a metropolitan area that accepted cash only for cat scans costing one third of what the hospital charges. 24 hour a day scheduling to lower the overhead. No insurance forms to lower overhead
6) Beyond necessary humanitarian health care, illegal aliens who receive free medical care should be sent back to their counties of origin at the expense of their cheating employers.
.
There are other ideas you might have. These are just the first ideas I can come up with. Most involve getting lawyers, insurance companies, administrators, and government out of the cost structure. The number of individuals who could afford medicine would spike. The number of individuals who could still not afford health care would be a much less of a burden on the government. Government could do a better job with that remaining group.

Do you want affordable health care or big government - or both? Even Canada's health care program, which seems to work well, has instituted #1 tort reform to squeeze the lawyers, insurance company profits, and administrators out of its health car system. So if you want a Canadian like result, that will have to be done anyway. Also, Canada's health care program is not national. Each province has its own health care system although the national government collects and distributed money to provinces from paychecks. So those of us who are not lawyers or insurance agents should be lobbying for tort reform whether we want an affordable private or single payer state health care

[oladub]

Jaberwocky, I don't know how you define tort control but limiting lawyer pay, limiting frivolous lawsuits, and throwing out McDonald's coffee burn type lawsuits are all measures of tort control. Some countries limit frivolous lawsuits by making the loser of the case pay the amount asked for in the case. If someone brings up a ridiculous case, they might go home owing a million dollars because they spilled coffee upon themselves. That cuts down on such lawsuits.

I don't know it it is still the case, but at one time Canadian doctors could be only sued for $10,000. Consequently, they did not buy liability insurance. In turn, the $35,000- $250,000 of annual liability insurance that U.S. doctors pay does not have to be passed on to patients. Patients then do not have to purchase such expensive medical insurance plans to pay for the part of doctor fees required to pay back the doctor for his insurance. This works especially well in government single payer plans because there are usually limits on suing governments. Since there is less insurance paperwork, medical administration staffs can be reduced. Its a chain reaction.

I would be careful of self-serving statements from legal lobbyists and insurance companies about tort controls. We are always hearing these unfounded or exagerated accounts about waiting times and the unavailability of medical care in Canada. I think this is the same sort of proaganda.

[oladub]

I was addressing the affordability of heath care. I think tort reform should be a priority in order to foster affordability. Canada has already concluded this and acted on this issue. Maybe I'm wrong but that seems to be the biggest problem with our present health care system. The technology, medicine, and doctor training are already good. If you want to hang on to your right to sue for unlimited amounts, then we can never have affordable private or single payer health care because everyone who wants to participate in such a system will have to insure themselves to the hilt and these expenses will have to be ultimately paid for by the patient or the government [[the taxpayer) . The desire to sue for big money, revenge, or whatever is costing us a lot of money.

Although Canada limited doctor liability costs, peer review boards get rid of bad doctors. Since this was a single payer system, the government just pays another doctor to fix the damages caused by a previous doctor. Its all at no cost to the patient so there isn't such a need to sue anyway except for lawyers trying to maintain their lifestyle. There are people who sue here and lose. They walk away with nothing except their attorney's bill. At least in Canada they would be guaranteed a repair job by the government.

In Canada, doctors make less money, lawyers make a lot less money, insurance companies make less money, and there are fewer health care administators. All of this makes health car half as expensive in Canada. Many of the policies incorporated into Canadian style health care could also be incorporated into either private health care here or our own state versions of Canadian systems. If we want to keep foddering lawyers, insurance companies, and stable full of administrators though, that is our choice.

[ccbatson]

Tort reform has helped already. More would be better.

[mjs]

Bats, we already know you value corporations over all else so you would approve of no regulation and no consumer rights. Oladub, I know that you’re smart enough to learn from facts you didn’t already know. The facts of the McDonald's case include:

1. The passenger was simply adding cream and sugar in a parked vehicle and had never sued anyone in her 79 years.
2. The third degree burns resulted in grafting and 8 days hospitalization and cost her $20,000.
3. She only sued after McDonald's refused her request that they pay nothing more than her hospital bill.
4. It was kept substantially higher than competitors so owners could save millions by letting the pot sit without a heating pad.
5. The award was punishing McDonald's for putting money over safety even after they knew of over 600 serious burn cases.
6. The award was lowered to $640,000 which is what Michigan statute would have required.
7. McDonalds now adds cream, sugar, and ice upon request.
8. The coffee is now safer for customers and employees.

If you want to see health care costs get lower, it helps to make those that cause injuries pay for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...;s_Restaurants
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

[mjs]

Tort reform has helped already.

Source? Ah, who am I kidding? The Legal Journals all say malpractice insurance spiked in Texas after they passed tort reform and I don't see cheap insurance in Michigan. Michigan is the only state where you couldn't sue Vioxx for fraud on the FDA and it has tort caps of $600,000 over actual losses. Well, $1.2 million on death or serious disfigurement. So, if allowing injury saves you more than that, you're a go.

[ccbatson]

Adding cream and sugar in her car [[parked, or otherwise). Why? to drink hot coffee while driving her car? Otherwise, she could have added it later. All besides the point, adults take risks in living life. Take responsibility as an adult should.

[mjs]

I said passenger. I said the vehicle was parked. Passengers in a parked car don't drive. Learn how to read.

[mjs]

A tort case requires:

1. A Duty- McDonald's had a duty to protect customers from unnecessary product risks.
2. A Breach- They set coffee machines to levels they knew could and had caused hundreds of very severe burns.
3. Damages- The woman received 3rd degree burns and a $20,000 bill.
4. Actual Cause- She wouldn't have been burned that bad if the coffee was at a safe level.
5. Proximate Cause- It was reasonable and foreseeable that coffee would be spilt and customers burned if it was too hot.

[oladub]

mjs, Sorry, but I cannot arouse any empathy for someone stupid and greedy enough to spill hot coffee on her lap and then blame someone else. She disqualified herself for Seal training or a good astronaut job. Find that lady a nice rubber padded climate controlled room and don't give her any pencils she might stick in her eye. McDonald's was going above and beyond for offering her hospital money. The rules of physics still apply. Coffee can't be heated to more than a boil. Buyers beware. She could have asked for an ice cube before she tried to drink while the car was moving.

I know a guy who did dump a cup of pop and ice on his lap on Haverhill in Detroit. It caused him to lose control and crash into a tree. Should he have sued whomever sold him the pop because the ice was too cold or the owner of the tree? Same thing as the coffee law suit.

Note: I do lots of dum things myself including eating too much saturated fat at places like McDonalds. Maybe if my arteries get a little more clogged, I can sue McDonalds for not monitoring and regulating what I ate there.

[mjs]

mjs, Sorry, but I cannot arouse any empathy for someone stupid and greedy enough to spill hot coffee on her lap and then blame someone else. .. . McDonald's was going above and beyond for offering her hospital money.

She didn't blame McDonald's for the spill or getting burned. She blamed McDonald's for causing it to melt her skin rather than turn it red. Boiling water is hotter than coffee. Seventy-nine years without filing a lawsuit shows she's not litigious. McDonald's offered zip. They refused to let the whole thing go when they refused her request to pay her bill. They even refused settlements later on.

She could have asked for an ice cube before she tried to drink while the car was moving.

The vehicle was parked and she was neither drinking the coffee nor driving the car. If she had asked for an ice cube, there's no saying they wouldn't have put it on the side. They put the cream and sugar on the side and for some reason, they've put my ice on the side.

I know a guy who did dump a cup of pop and ice on his lap on Haverhill in Detroit. It caused him to lose control and crash into a tree. Should he have sued whomever sold him the pop because the ice was too cold or the owner of the tree? Same thing as the coffee law suit.

Not at all the same. You don't have a duty, proximate cause, or actual cause. The store didn't have to protect customers from driving and the owner didn't have to protect people that drive off of the road. The drivers response was the proximate cause. The chain of events weren't reasonably foreseeable to the person that gave him the ice or the owner of the tree.

Note: I do lots of dumb things myself including eating too much saturated fat at places like McDonalds. Maybe if my arteries get a little more clogged, I can sue McDonalds for not monitoring and regulating what I ate there.

They don't have a legal duty to monitor and regulate what you eat. Thats why the case was thrown out. The system worked. They do have a duty to warn you of the risk. So, if the literature they gave you upon your request said their food had no saturated fats and had they not lied, you wouldn't have clogged arteries, you have a case. The cigarette cases required proof of concealing a known risk or the extent of that risk. It also explains why everyone outside of Michigan can sue Vioxx; the allegation is that they lied to get FDA approval.

[oladub]

Jaberwocky, I was saying the biggest problem with our health care system is affordability - not tort reform. I mentioned tort reform as the first of several suggestions to address the affordability problem. I haven't seen other suggestions added - only criticisms. Your counter to affordability was "Our "biggest problem" is lack of coverage for a large portion of our populace and the immense burden that for-profit health care puts on individuals, families, and companies since we pay more than twice as much as anyone else in the world for worse care. " Why don't you just say 'affordability' like I did?

How about the desire to sue for "big money" because someone screwed up and ruined your life?

As I said before, that is an option that keeps a lot of non-medical people in the medical system and makes medicine more expensive putting, as you put it, "an immense burden on individuals, families, and companies." We can keep our expensive medical system with all the whistles, and even expand it if that's the will of the majority.

Better yet, maybe we could have medical options and resolve our differences. For instance-
-Cash only medical clinics that only charge half as much but require a statement signed forbidding lawsuits or state provided single payer plans like Ontario's that heavily discourage lawsuits and
-Full service clinics with lawsuit opportunities with expensive insurance policies that people can't afford. This could be expanded into a government health care plan that extends this bloated coverage to everyone and bills taxpayers and and the insured to extend coverage.

mjs, Seventy-nine years without filing a lawsuit does seem to show she's not litigious. Maybe her age indicates that one of kids was a low life with fewer scruples who put her up to it. Its impossible to say. Maybe McDonald's shouldn't sell warm beverages to people over 70. I can't think of how many times I've burned my toungue on hot coffee and soup. I've had enough experience to know what a combination of gravity, hot liquid, and my own clumsiness can do so I would be careful with hot liquid in a car. What planet was this lady from?

[rb336]

I've got an idea -- let's let the market decide on what type of health care we have. throw a medicare-type public plan out there in the marketplace, let it compete in every arena with the corporate plans [[including in businesses) and see who wins.

[mjs]

Better yet, maybe we could have medical options and resolve our differences. For instance-
-Cash only medical clinics that only charge half as much but require a statement signed forbidding lawsuits . . .

That option is already available. You are free to get unregulated, buyer beware medical care in Tijuana. However, no insurance company in its right mind is going to insure you if you waive their right to get reimbursed if the hospital cuts off the wrong leg. I think your out of your mind for saying that would be acceptable to you especially if you were the one paying to get both legs cut off. I doubt you'd just say, "well, I choose to come here, I have to be responsible for my choices."

Go down to CAYMAC and watch some medical malpractice cases. The winning cases are legit. Don't you trust a jury comprised of people like you, with far far more case specific information than you, to determine whether the doctor or hospital made a grievous error?

[ccbatson]

You can't legally waive liability and practice medicine. It is window dressing at best giving a false sense of security. That kind of mistrust up front invites suits

[ccbatson]

They don't hold up in court. You can't waive malpractice

[mjs]

I never thought I'd say this, but ccbatson is right.

Nobody can sue for fun and profit. What do you base this crap on? Go to a court house, talk to a few attorneys, quit taking what you see in frickin TV dramas as reality. Its not the real world. I hate those damned shows because people like you think they're possible. Why do you have such disdain for a jury of your peers? If you sue for medical malpractice, you have meet a statutory requirement of serious injury. If you think trading your ability to have sex for a new car is fun and profitable, you need a shrink. The big money cases involve somebody that has a diminished lifestyle. If you think it would be fun to have a doctor make a mistake so you can avoid working by becoming paraplegic or you can get your car modified to accommodate your missing limb, you have some real issues. You're spitting in the face of the vast majority of the lawsuit victors who would be overwhelmed for any opportunity to trade the money they got for the things they lost.

This is a thread on health insurance. I'm done addressing your unbelievable ignorance on the subject of malpractice litigation and its affect on health care costs.