Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Medicare Trustee Blahous: ObamaCare costs at least $340 billion deficit

Medicare Trustee Blahous: ObamaCare costs at least $340 billion deficit
Thread Tools
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 01:47 AM
 
Study: Obama's health care law would raise deficit
Originally Posted by Businessweek
Reigniting a debate about the bottom line for President Barack Obama's health care law, a leading conservative economist estimates in a study to be released Tuesday that the overhaul will add at least $340 billion to the deficit, not reduce it.

Charles Blahous, who serves as public trustee overseeing Medicare and Social Security finances, also suggested that federal accounting practices have obscured the true fiscal impact of the controversial legislation, the fate of which is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Officially, the health care law is still projected to help reduce government red ink. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's non-partisan fiscal umpire, said in an estimate last year that repealing the law actually would increase deficits by $210 billion from 2012-2021.

The CBO, however, has not updated that projection. If $210 billion sounds like a big cushion, it's not. The government has recently been running annual deficits in the $1 trillion range.

Neither the budget office nor the White House had any immediate reaction late Monday to the new estimates.

"Taken as a whole, the enactment of the (health care law) has substantially worsened a dire federal fiscal outlook," Blahous wrote in his 52-page analysis, released by George Mason University's Mercatus Center. "The (law) both increases a federal commitment to health care spending that was already unsustainable under prior law and would exacerbate projected federal deficits relative to prior law."
I'm watching Mr. Blauhous on On The Record tonight explain, in as non-partisan a fashion as possible, the fact that ObamaCare adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. He explains that bogus CBO scoring conventions gave cover to those who claimed that it would not worsen the deficit, despite the fact that the double counting of savings and other dubious math was obvious to those conscious and honest about the legislation. He even explained that the CBO cost scoring documentation recognized in the plain text of the document that its headline scoring methods were misleading. Mr. Blahous is one of two Medicare trustees (one Republican and one Democrat), and for the record he is a Republican. I think it's shameful that the administration and its apologists (some of whom attempted to defend the deficit neutral/deficit savings claim on here) tried to con people into believing this legislation wouldn't worsen our national financial outlook, which was already bleak enough before hand.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Apr 11, 2012 at 02:05 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 02:25 AM
 
Don't forget that 500 billion will taken from Medicare to pay for Obama care.
World Over - 04-05-12 - BXVI in Mexico & Cuba, Santorum, Ryan, Cuccinelli with Raymond Arroyo - YouTube
45/47
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 02:59 AM
 
Yeah, and their propaganda counted that as saving Medicare, didn't it? It would be laughable if it weren't so revolting.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 04:59 AM
 
A conservative calculates that Obama has done/will do something wrong?

Excuse me while I have a shock induced heart attack.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 05:46 AM
 
I'll excuse the ignorance of your opinion.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 07:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I think it's shameful that the administration and its apologists (some of whom attempted to defend the deficit neutral/deficit savings claim on here) tried to con people into believing this legislation wouldn't worsen our national financial outlook, which was already bleak enough before hand.
As if the fact that we'd have to collect revenue four years in advance of the Act's first year wasn't a large enough red flag. Folks from both sides of the aisle love to tout CBO conclusions as if they're not simply running the numbers given them by advocates of the legislation.

Meanwhile, yet another federal agency responsible for overseeing Federal expenditures to foster an effective, sustainable, and transparent government for the American people has been found abusing the public trust in the most egregious manner imaginable. I'll be adding the GSA to my growing list of public abusers including MMS, NHTSA, FHA, and the SEC. If oversight is such an important development in the progress of mankind, who shall oversee the oversight authority?
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 12:11 PM
 
I am curious, Big Mac, what would you do about Medicare if you where running things. A gradual reduction? A quick elimination? Re-tooling? Your opinion is well known about entitlements, im just wondering how you would fix it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 12:37 PM
 
CBO graph of projected cost
45/47
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 12:40 PM
 
Thank you for asking, Athens. Keep the current system for those over 60 but phase it out for those below 60 over the next fifteen years. Phase in "Medicare 2" - premium support (much more generous for the poor, generous for the middle and minimal to none for high income earners) for private high-deductible major medical (catastrophic) insurance plus HSAs, obviously mandating that preexisting conditions exclusions are either eliminated or only temporary plan limitations for a period of time (six months to a year) that don't allow insurers to deny coverage completely. (We know that only select few will reach an advanced age with no preexisting medical issues whatsoever.) Those who want more generous plans (covering more than the base major medical) can pay substantially more if they wish. Have insurers compete across state lines. Also, give those on the old Medicare system open enrollment opportunities to switch to Medicare 2. Conservative seniors would switch over. (I've met seniors who are even more right-wing on this issue than I am!)

And that is the exact same recipe I would implement for younger workers. The Socialist path of government control over the production and distribution of health care isn't for a free United States, and the employer benefit model established by WWII economics is really starting to look bad itself (employers are getting squeezed by the higher costs, and employees change jobs much more often than 40 years ago). You don't expect your employer to buy you your car insurance or life insurance, so why should you expect or want your employer buying your health insurance?

Give individuals the same tax advantages for buying their own coverage that employers enjoy. Structure the market in the same way I suggest for "Medicare 2," with the major medical/HSA plans as a base and more generous plans as a premium priced option. Enforce similar provisions limiting preexisting condition exclusions and mandating insurer competition across states. I am confident that insurers can find a fair and economical way to deal with preexisting conditions that works financially both for them and those who have the medical issues. Perhaps state and federal governments would kick in some defined cost subsidies for higher risk individuals. And then, if a healthy worker gets an HSA and contributes to it regularly throughout three-four decades, by the time that person is going to retire the HSA will have grown considerably and will fund future health expenses for that person as a senior.

In fact, there's no reason why we can't have a universal system based on the market approach I outline that would apply to all ages, health conditions and incomes, with certain extra features added or omitted depending on individual circumstances. It would replace Medicare and Medicaid. It would supplant if not replace outright employer purchased plans, but that's fine as long as what's replacing it is a superior market-based approach. We could even throw a bone to the Progressives and give them their health care wet dream. We could call it "Medicare for all" just like they've been praying for for decades, but instead of extending that bankrupting Entitlement to the non-retired, we'd be giving everyone a truly market-based, flexible and competitive solution.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Apr 13, 2012 at 02:52 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 12:44 PM
 
Come on, guys, all this can't be possibly true.

Do you *REALLY* think Obama would lie to us about this ? Seriously ?

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Thank you for asking, Athens. Keep the current system for those over 60 but phase it out for those below 60 over the next fifteen years. Phase in "Medicare 2" - premium support (much more generous for the poor, generous for the middle and minimal to none for high income earners) for private high-deductible major medical (catastrophic) insurance plus HSAs, obviously mandating that preexisting conditions exclusions are either eliminated or only temporary plan limitations for a period of time (six months to a year) that don't allow insurers to deny coverage completely. (We know that only select few will reach an advanced age with no preexisting medical issues whatsoever.) Those who want more generous plans (covering more than the base major medical) can pay substantially more if they wish. Have insurers compete across state lines. Also, give those on the old Medicare system open enrollment opportunities to switch to Medicare 2. Conservative seniors would switch over. (I've met seniors who are even more right-wing on this issue than I am!)

And that is the exact same recipe I would implement for younger workers. The Socialist path of government control over the production of distribution of health care isn't for a free United States, and the employer benefit model established by WWII economics is really starting to look bad itself (employers are getting squeezed by the higher costs, and employees change jobs much more often than 40 years ago). You don't expect your employer to buy you your car insurance or life insurance, so why should you expect or want your employer buying your health insurance?

Give individuals the same tax advantages for buying their own coverage that employers enjoy. Structure the market in the same way I suggest for "Medicare 2," with the major medical/HSA plans as a base and more generous plans as a premium priced option. Enforce similar provisions limiting preexisting condition exclusions and mandating insurer competition across states. I am confident that insurers can find a far and economical way to deal with preexisting conditions that works financially both for them and those who have the medical issues. Perhaps state and federal governments would kick in some defined cost subsidies for higher risk individuals. And then, if a healthy worker gets an HSA and contributes to it regularly throughout three decades, by the time that person is going to retire the HSA will have grown considerably and will fund future health expenses for that person as a senior.

In fact, there's no reason why we can't have a universal system based on the market approach I outline that would apply to all ages, health conditions and incomes, with certain extra features added or omitted depending on individual circumstances. It would replace Medicare and Medicaid. It would supplant if not replace outright employer purchased plans, but that's fine as long as what's replacing it is a superior market-based approach. We could even throw a bone to the Progressives and give them their health care wet dream. We could call it "Medicare for all" just like they've been praying for for decades, but instead of extending that bankrupting Entitlement to the non-retired, we'd be giving everyone a truly market-based, flexible and competitive solution.
This sounds very similar to what Rep. Ryan outlined in his interview on "The World Over" last week. The left of course dragged out the predictable " they want to eliminate Medicare/want old people to die in the streets" response.

from CNN on the effort to repeal IPAB

Earlier this week, Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee told reporters that the IPAB panel was "designed to put a Washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor."

That's not the intent or the reality of the advisory board, insisted Dr. Donald Berwick, the former administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For example, the law targeted by the repeal effort specifically forbids the advisory board from rationing health care to reduce spending.

"We're in a very polarized era. It's hard to have rational conversations with people" on the issue, Berwick told CNN.

Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said this week that "charges that the board is going to be able to deny people care are just flat out wrong."

"The law makes every effort to restrict the board so that it can't do that," Van de Water said. "And in fact, if anything, the charge is the opposite of the truth."

The 15-member IPAB board would comprise independent experts to recommend Medicare cost reductions starting in 2015 if Congress and the health care industry and insurers fail to agree on $300 billion in savings called for in the health care reform law.

Designed as a nonpolitical solution in the event of legislative stalemate, the panel's recommendations do not require congressional approval but can be offset by Congress. Some critics, including Democrats who back health care reform, cite the independent board's relative autonomy as a reason for eliminating it.
That may not be the "intent or reality of the board," when has that stopped a federal body from doing something outside it's original intent?
45/47
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 02:12 PM
 
What exactly is Medicare 2, never herd of that one.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 03:30 PM
 
What if they could actually pull off torte reform? How much would that impact the cost of health insurance? Would it change the costs of administering health care?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 05:42 PM
 
Torte reform is one of the most dangerous attacks on American society. All it will do is allow companies profit off of injury.

When a jury awards money to some one, they have all the facts vs the public that see very little of why.

If brain damage to a kid is the fault of a doctor who screwed up during delivery, and the family is awarded 2 million for it. Even though it sounds like a lot, its not. Not when you consider the life long costs related to care for a child. Torte reform is dangerous.

The 2 biggest costs to US Health Care

Administrative Costs
Medical Industry / Drug costs at the wholesale level.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Torte reform is one of the most dangerous attacks on American society. All it will do is allow companies profit off of injury.

When a jury awards money to some one, they have all the facts vs the public that see very little of why.
It's amazing how little knowledge, understanding and common sense you have.

The American tort system / law is one of the MAIN culprits of expensive health care.
All the doctors need to buy expensive ass insurance, because of f*cking litigious, gold-digger patients.

NEWSFLASH: health care is NOT an exact science like physics. Shit happens.
If you can treat yourself better risk-free, do it.

The will be no lowering of health care cost in the US w/o tort reform.

Just tell me: you don't have ridiculous lawsuits in Canada, right ? Why ?
Because doctors never make mistakes ? Hardly. Because Canadian health care companies /providers are charitable organizations that would never try to maximize their own profit ? I doubt it.

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 06:25 PM
 
Sorry Turtle but you are so far wrong on this

Read up on this

Hot Coffee – HBO Documentary | Neufeld Law Firm

At trial an economist that explained that baby Colin would need $6,000,000 to receive adequate medical care for the rest of his life (had special needs, would be mentally delayed his whole life and would require additional surgeries). Jury awarded $5.6 Million along with a finding that the doctor’s negligence did, in fact, cause Colin’s brain injury. But Nebraska had fallen prey to the “tort reform” movement and had enacted caps on all damages. As a result, the $5.6 Million dollar verdict was automatically reduced to $1.25 Million.

The sad reality is that the doctor’s insurance company, which otherwise would have covered Colin’s medical needs for the rest of his life, simply shifted that burden onto the American taxpayer. At some point, the reduced amount of money from the verdict will run out and Colin will have no choice but to go on Medicaid.
This is the true direct cost to the tax payer. Companies that escape using profits to pay for mistakes out of there pocket and shifting responsibility to the public purse in medicare and medicaid.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 06:31 PM
 
Sadly you are one of the victims of misinformation about tort reform. Companies want tort reform to save money and pass the buck in responsibility. No one really knows how the McDonalds spilled coffee case was used to mislead the facts around it. Corporations made a joke out of it to get people like you for tort reform. Rather sad.

The reason Canadian judgements are lower is because of the differences in system. If a doctor screws you up in the US the person is paying out of pocket some how to deal with it. When our doctors screw up the system is still paying for the mistake. That Nebraska kid in my previous post with the brain damage. A Canadian couple wouldn't need 6 million for life long care of the kid because the kid would still be taken care of under medical. They would only get the a few hundred thousand for damages. Our lawsuits are cheaper because the amount needed in care is cheaper.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Our lawsuits are cheaper because the amount needed in care is cheaper.
Circular Reference Warning !

I don't buy it.

The high cost of insurance and law suit awards in the US is a FACT. Someone is paying for it. It's priced into the system.
You have presented no argument whatsoever why REMOVING some of the cost would NOT lead to lower health care cost.

Sure, the Canadian system is different. But you can't just take some aspects of it and apply it to the US.

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2012, 07:00 PM
 
Ok well then why is it not getting cheaper in the states that have tort reform in place already.

The fallacy, in the medical malpractice context, is that caps will keep cost of medical insurance down, which will in turn reduce cost of practicing medicine. But the data shows that in states that have enacted caps on medical negligence, insurance rates mostly have NOT gone down by any significant measure. In 2008, the average liability premium for doctors that practice medicine in states with caps was $46,336. In states without caps….$45,449.
Same source from above.

Most lawsuits in Canada are related to pain and suffering and the damages awarded are in that context. The amounts awarded in the US for pain and suffering are in the same class.

Take the case of Stella Liebeck

In the end, the jury awarded $160K in compensatory damages (medical bills, lost wages, pain & suffering)
Same case in Canada would have resulted in a number lower but not to much lower then this. I would say in the 120k range. So while it seems cheaper in Canada you have to take into account the medical costs in the US which validates the higher judgement. That cost is removed in Canada because every Canadian is already covered under medical and all that is already paid for. So a person does not need medical compensation for medical bills. They don't have the bills to be compensated for.

Corporations made a joke out of some high level lawsuits to get tort reform. End result is companies will not have to pay for actual compensation to people and profit from it. The punitive damages in that case with Stella Liebeck was 2.7 million which was (2 Days) of coffee profits. A jury decided that the company of McDonalds should be held punitively for putting people at risk. Side effect on tort reform is companies are not accountable and its cheap enough they can risk hurting a few people to make money doing dangerous things.

In the case of medical if a doctor can only be sued for $300 000 even though the damage done to some one could be in the area of millions to compensate, who won. The person hurt, nope. The tax payer, prob not because the care will come out of medicare and medicad. The Insurance company wins because because its no longer on the hook for millions and can still charge the same price as before.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2012, 07:31 AM
 
C'mon Canadians, you can't help fellow Commonwealthers?

Australian couple stuck with $1M bill for B.C.-born baby | CTV News
The Associated Press
Date: Wednesday Mar. 28, 2012 7:32 AM ET
SYDNEY, Australia — Australia's foreign affairs minister is looking into the case of a Sydney couple stuck with a $1 million hospital bill after their daughter was born in Vancouver last August.

John Kan and Rachel Evans had taken out travel insurance and extra coverage for Evans' pregnancy without realizing the policy would not cover birth or the baby.

They were about to return to Australia after their B.C. vacation when Evans went into premature labour at the airport.

Piper Kan stayed in the neo-natal ward of the B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre for three months and the bill ended up being about $1 million.

Australian media reports the couple negotiated a payment plan with the hospital at about $300 a month, which would take 278 years to pay off.

Evans tells the Herald Sun newspaper they don't begrudge the bill because they have a healthy daughter.

"Financially, it's not so good but you can't put a price on it," she told the newspaper.

It's unclear what support Australia's foreign ministry could offer, but the Herald says the country's Dept. of Health and Ageing will reportedly investigate whether it could pay the bill.

Evans said she is grateful for any help the government might be able to provide.

"We don't feel our mistake was someone else's responsibility but obviously it is quite a large amount so any assistance we can get would be helpful."

Australian residents can get treatments deemed medically necessary under reciprocal agreements with 11 countries, but Canada is not one of those countries.



Read more: Australian couple stuck with $1M bill for B.C.-born baby | CTV News
45/47
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2012, 01:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
C'mon Canadians, you can't help fellow Commonwealthers?

Australian couple stuck with $1M bill for B.C.-born baby | CTV News
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rance-horrors/

Already talked about that. And its amazing how insurance companies get away with this kind of BS.

The Australian public is against the idea of there government paying the bill blaming the couple for not having proper insurance. The Canadian public is kinda for footing the bill saying our government wastes a lot more on stupid things. End of the day the Hospital and the Couple came to a payment agreement which they have honored so far. Something like $350 a month for the rest of there lives.

At best BC Children Hospital may recoup a 5th of the bill if they live a long time. The real criminal in all this is the insurance industry. The family was lucky the baby was born while on the ground. If the plane had taken off, or perhaps had they been visiting the USofA the baby would have absolutely died.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2012, 08:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Sorry Turtle but you are so far wrong on this

Read up on this

Hot Coffee – HBO Documentary | Neufeld Law Firm



This is the true direct cost to the tax payer. Companies that escape using profits to pay for mistakes out of there pocket and shifting responsibility to the public purse in medicare and medicaid.
Athens... c'mon with the documentaries already. I understand that you and a jury found McDonald's culpable and I accept that as the ruling in that case, but I don't have to accept the premise, philosophically; that a Corporation should have to pay for the clumsiness and/or unfortunate personal mishaps of the people using their products.

Is Kawasaki responsible for repairing the broken limbs of someone who grabs a crotch-rocket of theirs, yanks hard on the throttle, and throws himself into a tree? I mean, he's purchased a bunch of Kawasakis afterall and they even have a label on them that says; "CAUTION: VERY FAST" which is exactly why he and so many others love them so much.

It's not okay to sock it to someone simply because they have more.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2012, 09:02 PM
 
Wow, seriously.... it was not about the fact it was spilled coffee, or about clumsiness. It was about the unsafe tempature of the coffee.

Incredibly, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforced a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee. McDonald's also claimed that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there, however, the company’s own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving. McDonald's also argued that consumers known coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness (third-degree burns) burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
And all she ever asked for was $20 000 dollars to cover the medical bills. McDonalds counter offer was $800.00. The Jury awarded 2.7 Million in punitive damages based on McDonalds own research, there own testimony that they knew 185 degree coffee was exceptionally dangerous and that they failed to act on 700 previous cases of burns. But I guess all that don't matter to you.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Wow, seriously.... it was not about the fact it was spilled coffee, or about clumsiness. It was about the unsafe tempature of the coffee.
Really? Since when is there something unusual about using boiling water for beverages and food? Has this women never used boiled water to make soup in her life? Has she never used a tea kettle to boil water for drinks? You know water temperature stops rising at boiling point right?

Why would anyone be opening the cup to drink when it just finished boiling?

Why would someone open this in a car?

As for baby Colin; they should just be glad he's alive. Sounds like he wouldnt be without that doctor...

If they weren't boiling coffee they would have eventually been sued about unsanitary conditions. Perhaps Mcdonalds should boil it then have a refrigerator system setup to keep it an exact comfortable temperature for people who should be winning Darwin awards.

If you don't like hot coffee you have a right to not shop at mcdonalds. Make it yourself at whatever temperature you like, then you can sue the stove manufacturer when it makes the water "unnecessarily" hot.

As for baby colin they should just be glad he's alive; sounds like he wouldn't be if it wasn't for that doctor... Maybe the mom should have had a natural birth; then she could sue nature.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 03:13 AM
 
Graphic Image / NSFW

 
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 03:16 AM
 
Oh and she only asked for $20 000 to cover the medical costs...
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I'll excuse the ignorance of your opinion.
I won't excuse the bias that renders yours virtually pointless.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Big Mac  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 07:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I won't excuse the bias that renders yours virtually pointless.
My bias is in favor of Constitutional limited government, individual liberty, free market solutions concomitant therewith and government fiscal sanity. I think that's a very virtuous bias to have. What's your bias (asking as if I don't know)?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The high cost of insurance and law suit awards in the US is a FACT. Someone is paying for it. It's priced into the system.
Which is why it would cost 6 million in care for the example above. Health Care is expensive because for every legit lawsuit for negligence with a reasonable outcome, there are 10 more ambulance chasers looking for a buck from a Doctor who did his best, but had a patient with a less than favorable outcome who has to shell out millions.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
To hot... this is what 185 F water does, the damage done increases exponentially as the temp goes up. 145 F will hurt but wont cause this kind of damage. Even 160 F.
Right and you know what temperature they're serving the coffee now? 170 F. Hmm. Still scalding and would still burn the absolute crap out of an elderly woman's leg. Should I be posting pictures of aborted fetuses so you'll oppose abortion based on graphic, horrific images?

Have you seen motorcycle accident injuries before? Anything over 20mph is unsafe. All vehicles and particularly motorcycles should be regulated not to exceed 20 mph because that is a known, unsafe speed. It wouldn't matter if you preferred Kawasakis specifically because they're so fast, they should be limited to 20 mph. Motorcycle injuries are pretty damned graphic and if the injuries were near enough the genitalia, I'd even put them behind a spoiler because they're NSFW.

The fact is she absolutely loved McDonald's coffee because it was hot. She had purchased many McDonald's coffees prior without incident as did literally millions and millions of others rendering your 700 other burn cases I'm afraid; emotionally moving, but inconsequential. Come to think of it, Kawasakis don't have warning labels for their speeds. How do any of us manage to survive?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Which is why it would cost 6 million in care for the example above. Health Care is expensive because for every legit lawsuit for negligence with a reasonable outcome, there are 10 more ambulance chasers looking for a buck from a Doctor who did his best, but had a patient with a less than favorable outcome who has to shell out millions.
Kaboom! ^^ Sock it to whomever has more because they do. Robinhood politics. I'm not much concerned for activist trial lawyers with access to a film crew to pedal their wares to sheeple.

This explains why it took more than $700 in heart monitoring and testing to determine that I needed my gall bladder removed.
ebuddy
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The fact is she absolutely loved McDonald's coffee because it was hot. She had purchased many McDonald's coffees prior without incident as did literally millions and millions of others rendering your 700 other burn cases I'm afraid; emotionally moving, but inconsequential. Come to think of it, Kawasakis don't have warning labels for their speeds. How do any of us manage to survive?
Exactly. Anyone who has every had a cup of coffee knows that it's going to burn if it touches your skin right after it comes out a pot. If you immediately drink it, you're going to scald your mouth to high heavens. Who in their right mind wouldn't know that it would causes burns to other parts of your skin?

The answer is, no one. The women in question knew that a hot cup of coffee should not be poured on her skin. If it should not be poured on your skin, then you should not be negligent by driving with hot coffee sitting between your legs where it could very well tip over and spill on you.

The photos and sob story isn't really all that compelling, IMO. She did something stupid that the rest of the world would know could very well end with bad consequences, then wanted someone else to pay for her clumsiness. There was no defect in the coffee or cup. The coffee was served exactly the way most rational people (who are customers of McDonalds) wants it served. The only difference between them and this woman is that the woman was careless with liquids she knew had recently been at a boiling point. McDonalds should never be held liable for her stupidity. People should start acting like they are adults with a brain in their heads. Life would be a lot less costly that way.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Wow, seriously.... it was not about the fact it was spilled coffee, or about clumsiness. It was about the unsafe tempature of the coffee.



And all she ever asked for was $20 000 dollars to cover the medical bills. McDonalds counter offer was $800.00. The Jury awarded 2.7 Million in punitive damages based on McDonalds own research, there own testimony that they knew 185 degree coffee was exceptionally dangerous and that they failed to act on 700 previous cases of burns. But I guess all that don't matter to you.
Sorry ... but I'm going to have to roll with ebuddy and stupendousman on this one. If YOU put hot coffee in between your legs and it spills ... well then there are consequences and repercussions to YOUR actions. And you shouldn't be getting millions because of your own carelessness.

Now having said that, given the documented warnings the company had from its QA Manager regarding the high temperature of the coffee ... McDonald's Corp. was beyond stupid to counter an elderly woman with that severe an injury $800 when all she asked for was $20K to cover her medical bills. The smarter play would have been to pay the woman's medical bills and settle out of court with a gag order and a provision that she could not sue for any further damages. But McDonald's legal department decided to go with a counter offer that was essentially an insult to the woman ... and the jury did not take too kindly to that given the extent of her injuries coupled with the company's own research. It comes off as a multi-billion dollar company bullying a little old lady. So was a nearly 3 million dollar punitive judgement plus legal fees plus all the bad publicity really worth it? I'd say not.

But again ... if I were the judge I wouldn't have awarded the punitive judgement to the woman. Yeah I would have still dinged the company because A) it knew the coffee was crazy hot and likely to cause serious injury in the event of a spill ... which is bound to happen for some of its customers in a moving vehicle due to carelessness or otherwise, and B) it should have had sense enough to settle out of court. But I would have ordered the company to make a donation to a charitable organization for burn victims or something. I definitely would not have rewarded the woman for her own carelessness.

OAW
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Which is why it would cost 6 million in care for the example above. Health Care is expensive because for every legit lawsuit for negligence with a reasonable outcome, there are 10 more ambulance chasers looking for a buck from a Doctor who did his best, but had a patient with a less than favorable outcome who has to shell out millions.
Then perhaps Court reform is needed, losing parties should be forced to pay for all the court costs. If you have something to lose by filing a lawsuit, it should quickly limit the number of people going to court. Only those that have a legit claim will file.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Now having said that, given the documented warnings the company had from its QA Manager regarding the high temperature of the coffee ... McDonald's Corp. was beyond stupid to counter an elderly woman with that severe an injury $800 when all she asked for was $20K to cover her medical bills. The smarter play would have been to pay the woman's medical bills and settle out of court with a gag order and a provision that she could not sue for any further damages.
I agree with this.

However, maybe they figured that they'd win and that would discourage other lawyers from trying the same scheme in the future? Maybe in the end, they've done that in a way anyways?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Sorry ... but I'm going to have to roll with ebuddy and stupendousman on this one. If YOU put hot coffee in between your legs and it spills ... well then there are consequences and repercussions to YOUR actions. And you shouldn't be getting millions because of your own carelessness.

Now having said that, given the documented warnings the company had from its QA Manager regarding the high temperature of the coffee ... McDonald's Corp. was beyond stupid to counter an elderly woman with that severe an injury $800 when all she asked for was $20K to cover her medical bills. The smarter play would have been to pay the woman's medical bills and settle out of court with a gag order and a provision that she could not sue for any further damages. But McDonald's legal department decided to go with a counter offer that was essentially an insult to the woman ... and the jury did not take too kindly to that given the extent of her injuries coupled with the company's own research. It comes off as a multi-billion dollar company bullying a little old lady. So was a nearly 3 million dollar punitive judgement plus legal fees plus all the bad publicity really worth it? I'd say not.

But again ... if I were the judge I wouldn't have awarded the punitive judgement to the woman. Yeah I would have still dinged the company because A) it knew the coffee was crazy hot and likely to cause serious injury in the event of a spill ... which is bound to happen for some of its customers in a moving vehicle due to carelessness or otherwise, and B) it should have had sense enough to settle out of court. But I would have ordered the company to make a donation to a charitable organization for burn victims or something. I definitely would not have rewarded the woman for her own carelessness.

OAW
Bad publicity? McDonalds got exactly what it wanted. A news worthy story that painted a old lady as a evil lawsuit person and McDonalds the victim of a "frivolous" attack. Was pretty damn good PR for McDonalds. And the tort reformers got exactly what they wanted. A story that on the surface sounded absolutely retarded. When I first heard about this I was laughing it up with Co-workers, only in America can some one sue for spilling coffee. But after seeing the particulars of the case years later and how it was used to manipulate the public into tort reform I really did a about face on both issues. I am really wondering now how many of those lawsuits we hear in news are frivolous based on missing facts not being reported with them. And I stopped laughing a old lady that made a mistake.

But its cases like this that got spun by the media to get people on board for tort reform so people of real medical costs related to real medical mistakes get screwed out of the compensation needed to take care of some one for life. And that will fall back on to medicare and medicad. My argument is tort reform will cost the medical system far more from tort reform, causing the government to pick up the tab for the care of people that rightfully should have gotten the full amounts from those responsible. IF a judge awards 6 million to a family for the life long care of some one who do you prefer paying. The insurance company of the doctor or the tax payer through medicad because the damages where limited.

Im not attacking Wal-Mart....

Its like how walmart encourages its employees to make use of medicare and other assistance programs because a large portion of there part time employees qualify because of the low wages they make. And as of 2011 Wal mart cut medical benefits and increased prices.

Walmart Cuts Employee Health Care Benefits - ABC News

“The current health care system is unsustainable for everyone. At Walmart we’ve made choices we have not wanted to make, like many employers in the country,” Greg Rossiter, Walmart spokesman, told ABC News.
I really wonder how long it will be before most companies can't offer medical insurance to employees because of high medical costs.

The drug companies, the insurance companies and the product manufacturers are milking every one in the US. The government, the people and the business.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 01:55 PM
 
Mcdonalds isn't at fault at all. In any way no matter how you look at it. I'm absolutely scratching my head right now wondering how people in this world got this incompetently liberal and unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions. The coffee was served the same temperature it has been served for hundreds of years. It was served at less than 100 degrees Celsius. These pictures may be shocking to you Athens but they are pretty common burns typical to people who spill food on themselves ALL the time. In fact many people have died from the burns of spilling a pot of boiled water on themselves in their own home. Who's fault is it if the lady had made a cup at home brought it in the car with her, and spilled on herself? Who she sue then? How is this case any different? What kind of person tries to pry open the lid of boiling coffee while in a car?? Maybe I should go out and buy a gun, then try loading it between my legs in a car and shoot myself in the foot, then I can sue the store for selling it to me because they didn't have a sign that said "warning, guns are dangerous".

OAW the reason Mcdonalds didn't just settle with the lady is if they had they would have been admitting guilt and set a president for more of these frivolous suits in the future. The fact of the matter is it is 100% the customer's fault. These are the kind of law suits that make it hard to sue companies when they actually are doing something wrong.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post

I really wonder how long it will be before most companies can't offer medical insurance to employees because of high medical costs.
This would be a really good thing actually. It would force people to find insurance on the open market which in turn would force insurance companies to price compete; the price would have to be, how do you say, more the same for everyone than it is now... The current employer sponsored model allows insurance companies to establish monopolies withing the workplace and weed out people without the 'right' job. Watch how price would go down once people are out price searching on their own; watch how much more responsible people would be with their health. You would have a whole plethora of new plans available. All insurance plans should have a $1000-10000 deductible which would greatly lower the premiums and medical expenses all around. These plans are hard to find in the work place as it is now.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
OAW the reason Mcdonalds didn't just settle with the lady is if they had they would have been admitting guilt and set a president precedent for more of these frivolous suits in the future. The fact of the matter is it is 100% the customer's fault. These are the kind of law suits that make it hard to sue companies when they actually are doing something wrong.
Companies settle lawsuits without "admitting guilt" quite often. All day ... every day in fact. As for the setting a precedent, that's what the gag order provision is for. Given all the publicity there's a lot more people out there who may try sue over something that they brought upon themselves. Just saying ....

OAW
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
This would be a really good thing actually. It would force people to find insurance on the open market which in turn would force insurance companies to price compete; the price would have to be, how do you say, more the same for everyone than it is now... The current employer sponsored model allows insurance companies to establish monopolies withing the workplace and weed out people without the 'right' job. Watch how price would go down once people are out price searching on their own; watch how much more responsible people would be with their health. You would have a whole plethora of new plans available. All insurance plans should have a $1000-10000 deductible which would greatly lower the premiums and medical expenses all around. These plans are hard to find in the work place as it is now.
I see a lot of people not being able to get insurance from pre-existing conditions.
I see a lot of people not getting coverage out of pocket because they can't afford it or don't want to pay it. (Net effect more costs to the medical system from unpaid bills)
I don't see prices going any lower even with open markets because like all markets sooner or later the big guys will swallow up the little guys and all the different brands you see will be owned by one or two parent companies. You have open markets for Cable TV, why is it in most markets you only have one Cable TV provider. WIth fewer people paying into insurance if anything the rates will go up to protect profit margins.

I just cant see a totally free market insurance system being good to any one except the absolutely healthy low risk people. Most people will just get screwed over.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2012, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Wow, seriously.... it was not about the fact it was spilled coffee, or about clumsiness. It was about the unsafe tempature of the coffee.
Coffee at its preferred temperature is unsafe for pouring over your thighs. Period. Otherwise, there is no such thing as an "unsafe temperature" any more than there is an "unsafe speed" as justification for suing Kawasaki because you carelessly yanked the throttle on your motorcycle.

It has absolutely, positively everything to do with the fact that it was spilled coffee. This isn't an issue because she drank the cup of coffee that day without incident as she had numerous other times before. It is specifically about the fact that she spilled the coffee all over her thighs due to precarious placement of the beverage with Cautions stamped on it. Perhaps clumsiness is too harsh a word for you because of how severe the burns are so we'll say, momentarily less than 100% focused in handling the hot beverage as advertised, cautioned against, and sold to millions who like it that way.

Why must society repeatedly remind us of the importance of stamping DO NOT PLACE IN MOUTH on fireworks?
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2012, 04:54 AM
 
The point is something like this was blown way out of proportion in the media to achieve a goal to convince people of tort reform. The details where carefully omitted. Tort reform ends up hurting people with legitimate claims like that brain damaged kid from Nebraska. But sadly due to tort reform even though award 6 million for LIFE LONG CARE, it was capped. At the end of the day the one that foots the bill is not the private insurance company of the doctor that screwed up. It is the tax payer picking up the tab because the family was short changed by tort reform.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2012, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I see a lot of people not being able to get insurance from pre-existing conditions.
I understand this Athens and it's very unfortunate, but why assume someone else has to manage the condition? I see a lot of people with a lot of different challenges, but this doesn't mean someone else is obligated to manage it for them. There is no law that says you can't acknowledge that you have a unique situation and take measure including saving to address it. If one is paying cash for services, they'll shop more aggressively. This creates a more competitive environment. The only way this doesn't work is if people have somehow become so complacent that an instinct as natural as breathing (survival and saving money) isn't important to them. The only way this happens is when someone else is managing the condition.

I see a lot of people not getting coverage out of pocket because they can't afford it or don't want to pay it. (Net effect more costs to the medical system from unpaid bills)
The first part of the problem is the medical system. Why is your focus on the above scenario when the overwhelming majority of us do not function that way? When you design a system around the lowest common denominator, you eventually lower the common denominator.

I don't see prices going any lower even with open markets because like all markets sooner or later the big guys will swallow up the little guys and all the different brands you see will be owned by one or two parent companies. You have open markets for Cable TV, why is it in most markets you only have one Cable TV provider. WIth fewer people paying into insurance if anything the rates will go up to protect profit margins.
Eesh. So cynical. Would you be the above, greedy a-hole if you owned a company? Why not? If it's profitable right? I mean, why such a low regard for you and me? After all, we could be business owners. We could eventually end up being very wealthy business owners. Does this define us? Will we all of a sudden morph into cigar-chomping sloths with 0 integrity and nothing, but abject hatred for the unfortunate, the down-trodden, the handicapped, and the infirm? Of course not. I see no reason to focus on those that are. They can't stay in business to abuse consumers without government choosing them as winners in spite of a losing track record.

If you want to see a skewed cable TV market, look to the state regulations that distorted it over time. And you're missing the whole boat in your focus on insurance companies. There's no profit in health insurance which is why most health insurers do much more than simply sell health insurance. The problem is health care costs and there isn't a system in existence that has managed to control them. Why? Because there isn't a system in existence that wasn't designed around the lowest common denominator.

I just cant see a totally free market insurance system being good to any one except the absolutely healthy low risk people. Most people will just get screwed over.
Eesh, so bitter. This is such a defeatist mentality. The only way most people will get screwed over is if they've given themselves up to victimization through complacency. There's no law against high-risk people acknowledging their condition and taking measures to manage it. The only way this doesn't work is if there is an artificial entity, with artificial resources distorting the free market by taking your survival instinct away from you.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2012, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The point is something like this was blown way out of proportion in the media to achieve a goal to convince people of tort reform.
You mean just like the documentary that exploits these cases so trial lawyers can pedal their wares and increase their take in the courtroom?

The details where carefully omitted. Tort reform ends up hurting people with legitimate claims like that brain damaged kid from Nebraska.
Tort reform was necessary because it was being abused by hungry trial lawyers. That brain damaged kid is a rarity under our system, hungry trial lawyers aren't. That's the problem. One has caused a greater burden on the system than the other.

But sadly due to tort reform even though award 6 million for LIFE LONG CARE, it was capped. At the end of the day the one that foots the bill is not the private insurance company of the doctor that screwed up. It is the tax payer picking up the tab because the family was short changed by tort reform.
This may come as a shock to you Athens, but Doctors aren't perfect. An extremely complicated pregnancy involving twins and twisted umbilical cords was not the fault of the doctor. Without care of any kind, neither child would've survived. Your focus begins at the doctor instead of nature itself because nature itself is apparently too harsh a reality. Someone else must be required to manage our collective challenges. It's okay to outright abort a baby you're not interested in keeping, but someone else is required to pay for the consequences of nature. *Does not compute.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2012, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This may come as a shock to you Athens, but Doctors aren't perfect. An extremely complicated pregnancy involving twins and twisted umbilical cords was not the fault of the doctor. Without care of any kind, neither child would've survived. Your focus begins at the doctor instead of nature itself because nature itself is apparently too harsh a reality. Someone else must be required to manage our collective challenges. It's okay to outright abort a baby you're not interested in keeping, but someone else is required to pay for the consequences of nature. *Does not compute.
No Doctors are not perfect but at least in this case it was clear a lot of things got screwed up, stuff that is standard procedure. And isn't that the point of lawsuits to sue for damages related to this kind of error.

I imagine this one case is not the typical one representing lawsuits against doctors. So I am only referring to this one only.

And the previous post to this one, all I have to say is every human, every living life form has a pre-existing condition. Its called life. At some point we all suffer a condition. There is no way around it. It is why it should be taken off the table because why should Person A get a cheaper rate just because there pre-existing condition is at that point in time unknown while Person B whose is known gets penalization.

Reform needs to be at 2 ends. The cost of care delivery, and the conditions of insurance. The price of insurance is a problem with the cost of care delivery. The failures in the insurance industry is finding complex ways to exclude as many paying customers as possible from being covered.
( Last edited by Athens; Apr 16, 2012 at 02:33 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2012, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
My bias is in favor of Constitutional limited government, individual liberty, free market solutions concomitant therewith and government fiscal sanity. I think that's a very virtuous bias to have. What's your bias (asking as if I don't know)?
My political leanings aren't terribly simple to sum up. Over here I'd probably be considered right of the middle, on your side of the pond I'd be considered left. The truth is I have a healthy lack of respect for most politicians, those that aren't absoute self-serving scumbags tend to lack the ambition or the balls to do what really needs to be done.

If I had to sum it up, I guess I'd be anti-party first and foremost. I really think political parties do more harm than good these days. Their time has passed and they need to go.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2012, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I understand this Athens and it's very unfortunate, but why assume someone else has to manage the condition? I see a lot of people with a lot of different challenges, but this doesn't mean someone else is obligated to manage it for them. There is no law that says you can't acknowledge that you have a unique situation and take measure including saving to address it. If one is paying cash for services, they'll shop more aggressively. This creates a more competitive environment. The only way this doesn't work is if people have somehow become so complacent that an instinct as natural as breathing (survival and saving money) isn't important to them. The only way this happens is when someone else is managing the condition.
Think about what you are saying. I have had cancer. I've been clear for over 8 years now, but there is a possibility it could return. If I move back to the states and AHCA is not fully implemented, there is a good chance that any health insurance I get will not cover me for cancer. I make a pretty good living by most standards and am responsible with money. I could not afford to pay out of pocket for cancer treatment no matter how much I save- just not realistic. So I go bankrupt and become a problem for the tax payer- or I'm left to die.

What is your solution to my not unique problem?

As a society we need to either agree that we are going to let the sick poor die or we are going to pool our resources and pay for those that can't afford it. If we choose the latter, why wait until otherwise financially sound and contributing members of society have lost everything to start helping?

The NHS is so far from perfect but I know without question that as long as I live in the UK I can expect first world health care without worry- no matter my medical past and no matter my current employment status. I pay a good bit for it in National Insurance tax, but there are no surprises. It's hard to imagine going back to the health care lottery in the states unless things get sorted.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Think about what you are saying. I have had cancer. I've been clear for over 8 years now, but there is a possibility it could return. If I move back to the states and AHCA is not fully implemented, there is a good chance that any health insurance I get will not cover me for cancer. I make a pretty good living by most standards and am responsible with money. I could not afford to pay out of pocket for cancer treatment no matter how much I save- just not realistic. So I go bankrupt and become a problem for the tax payer- or I'm left to die.
You're certainly not going to be left to die, but you bring up some good points here. You said; "I could not afford to pay out of pocket for cancer treatment no matter how much I save- just not realistic."

The simple fact of the matter is that if you can't afford to pay for it, it's going to be a problem for the taxpayer regardless. In the meantime, should you be able to hold on to that Lexus? The $250k house? Or any of the other frivolities prevalent among the modern consumer? Again, please understand I know how cold this sounds, but we have to keep some things in perspective here. First, there is no better survival rate for cancer than in the US. Second, I'm not in favor of the status quo or the AHCA. Third, you can purchase catastrophic or higher deductible plans that accept members with preexisting conditions. You can invest in HSAs that accumulate capital not unlike an IRA, tax free for use on medical expenses. Employers, the government, and others can pitch into that HSA for any number of reasons.

What is your solution to my not unique problem?
I think we can improve a great many things and have more assistance available for means-tested catastrophic care by rethinking health care entirely. The market needs to be opened up from intra-state to interstate allowing greater flexibility in coverage options and plans by eliminating the state-by-state monopolies and facilitating more effective risk-pooling. States could then compete for insurance "charters" which encourages even greater flexibility in coverage options as they compete for charter status. Education; among the most common classes of preexisting conditions include diabetes, STDs, obesity, etc... which are often the product of a lifestyle not conducive to wellness. Cancer is often among them. It creates a moral hazard to assume someone else should be responsible for what is often the product of our own choices. Although, we don't let them die either. Subsidies paid for those that meet the means-tested criteria should be payable to an HSA with the option of rolling plan savings over to the next plan years encouraging shoppers to move around for the best rates. Health care costs are what they are because they can be. This needs to stop and providers need to compete for business, not get guaranteed clientele under a State-sanctioned monopoly. These are just a few of many ideas that would begin to move the US system in the proper direction.

As a society we need to either agree that we are going to let the sick poor die or we are going to pool our resources and pay for those that can't afford it. If we choose the latter, why wait until otherwise financially sound and contributing members of society have lost everything to start helping?
If all we had to worry about were the sick and poor, we'd be a lot better off. I think the problem is when welfare is stretched into those who are not. Otherwise, these arguments may be more emotionally appealing, but they don't address the problems we're all facing with health care expenditures. Even as cruel as people seem to view the US health care system, if you don't have health care in the US, you're not trying. There are more than three million children eligible for Medicaid in the US for example, yet remain un-enrolled. This is inexcusable and speaks directly to a collective that expects someone else to handle all of their affairs. Again, we have to fundamentally change the way we approach health care.

The NHS is so far from perfect but I know without question that as long as I live in the UK I can expect first world health care without worry- no matter my medical past and no matter my current employment status. I pay a good bit for it in National Insurance tax, but there are no surprises. It's hard to imagine going back to the health care lottery in the states unless things get sorted.
To each their own I suppose. I'm glad you're happy and it's working for you. It may not be working well for your system however and there isn't a system in existence that has managed to control costs.
ebuddy
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The simple fact of the matter is that if you can't afford to pay for it, it's going to be a problem for the taxpayer regardless. In the meantime, should you be able to hold on to that Lexus? The $250k house? Or any of the other frivolities prevalent among the modern consumer?
Not that it matters, but I drive a 2001 VW Golf that I bought for cash and am debt free- we rent so no mortgage. I could be driving a new Lexus through a company car plan, but I rather packet/save the money in a cash equivalent. I spend my money on things that are a bit more important- my family's future. And as long as I'm here, I know the cost of a medical disaster can't take that away.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
NEWSFLASH: health care is NOT an exact science like physics. Shit happens.
I think you mean math. In physics, many things are not exact; or more appropriately, can't be exact (i.e. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.)
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:08 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,