News and Politics Forum

Comparing my position to the Pentagon or Nationalization is incorrect.

All industries are regulated by the government, free enterprise is often enhanced by those regulations.

Perhaps we should quit funding road construction with tax dollars as a common good.  LOL!

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-25-2008 08:38 PM)

EscapeVelocity wrote:

If a test isn't necessary, how -precisely- does it protect against a malpractice suit?  -- zuk

You should be able to understand that many tests are done, just to be sure that the diagnosis is correct, meaning that its not something else).....and a lot of this is driven by liability for faulty diagnosis.

Though not a medical expert, I'll go way out on a limb and suggest that if a faulty dx is malpractice that results in injury to someone, and you nedd a test to avoid a faulty diagnosis, then the test is necessary.

It would benefit from specific costs being more directly perceived by consumers.  Both government and insurance can work against that, but if people insulate themselves from direct costs with insurance, it is voluntary.

EscapeVelocity wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

EscapeVelocity wrote:

You should be able to understand that many tests are done, just to be sure that the diagnosis is correct, meaning that its not something else).....and a lot of this is driven by liability for faulty diagnosis.

Though not a medical expert, I'll go way out on a limb and suggest that if a faulty dx is malpractice that results in injury to someone, and you nedd a test to avoid a faulty diagnosis, then the test is necessary.

Ruling out esoteric diagnosis with expensive tests is not necessary or cost effective.  This is what HMOs attempted to cut out, excepting that they got hit with malpractice lawsuits instead.

Are you understanding my point?

Yes, but you are wrong.

For a plaintiff to prevail in a medical malpractice suit, he must demonstrate an injury arising from a doctor's failure to observe the the local level of care.

If you injure someone because you failed to perform a test, the test was necessary to proper medical care.

If you want to sign a waiver each time you see a doc that says he can kill as long as your dx is routine and the tests to come to it are cheap, I'm sure he will appreciate that.  Most americans demand more.

EscapeVelocity wrote:

The system is set up to delivery the best care possible, at any cost, and is reinforced through litigation.

That's because people want that.  I've never heard someone walk into a doc's office and ask for second rate care.

EscapeVelocity wrote:

If you injure someone because you failed to perform a test, the test was necessary to proper medical care.---- zuk


You are of course correct, as am I.  This leads to a bunch of unneccessary tests, so as to cover your ass from litigation.  Which in turn drives up costs and prices people out of the market.

It would only protect you from litigation if it kept you from hurting someone.  Therefore it is necessary to proper medical care.

zukiphile wrote:

EscapeVelocity wrote:

If you injure someone because you failed to perform a test, the test was necessary to proper medical care.---- zuk


You are of course correct, as am I.  This leads to a bunch of unneccessary tests, so as to cover your ass from litigation.  Which in turn drives up costs and prices people out of the market.

It would only protect you from litigation if it kept you from hurting someone.  Therefore it is necessary to proper medical care.

And so we have a battery of uneccessary tests run on every patient, because you never know when the test will be necessary and save you from legal action.  Not running tests, is a unneccessary risk, much better to let the Insurance Co.s worry about it, which pass the costs on to the consumer, via higher rates which price people and businesses out of the market.

Give it up, zuk.  You know Im right.

EscapeVelocity wrote:

And so we have a battery of uneccessary tests run on every patient, because you never know when the test will be necessary and save you from legal action.  Not running tests, is a unneccessary risk, much better to let the Insurance Co.s worry about it, which pass the costs on to the consumer, via higher rates which price people and businesses out of the market.

Give it up, zuk.  You know Im right.

I'm trying to be gentle about this.

I handle these issues with some frequency.   You do not appear to understand them.  You have concluded that docs run tests that are medically unnecessary, but which just protect against them injuring people through malpractice.  That position is literal nonsense.  You think insurance companies just pay bills without scrutiny, making me think that you deal with them infrequently.

I think you've accepted a villain to explain healthcare expenses, but haven't thought it through yet.

zukiphile wrote:

EscapeVelocity wrote:

And so we have a battery of uneccessary tests run on every patient, because you never know when the test will be necessary and save you from legal action.  Not running tests, is a unneccessary risk, much better to let the Insurance Co.s worry about it, which pass the costs on to the consumer, via higher rates which price people and businesses out of the market.

Give it up, zuk.  You know Im right.

I'm trying to be gentle about this.

I handle these issues with some frequency.   You do not appear to understand them.  You have concluded that docs run tests that are medically unnecessary, but which just protect against them injuring people through malpractice.  That position is literal nonsense.  You think insurance companies just pay bills without scrutiny, making me think that you deal with them infrequently.

I think you've accepted a villain to explain healthcare expenses, but haven't thought it through yet.

I think that the insurance co.s, are often defendents as well.

zukiphile wrote:

It would benefit from specific costs being more directly perceived by consumers.  Both government and insurance can work against that, but if people insulate themselves from direct costs with insurance, it is voluntary.

The system is built to hide cost. It is not consumer choosing to limit knowledge on these. Exposure is limited through a complicated industry of profit and, from a consumers view, mysticism. The relationship between consumer and administration is convoluted. The system certainly seemed to be far more equitable and cost-effective seventy years ago.

My goal is to offer more affordable health care choices for a greater number of people. 

Ill use a car analogy.

BMWs and Volvos are great, but some people can only afford Hyundais and Kias.  In the Health Care world in the US, Hyundais and Kias arent on offer.


Look into the Massachussetts plan.  Its pretty impressive and flexible.

Last edited by EscapeVelocity (07-25-2008 11:28 PM)

Yet you also seem to see healthcare as a proposition of 'only the best'. Healthcare will be compromised regardless of circumstance, unless one is unusually wealthy. How does one request substandard healthcare at the hospital? Current regulations prohibit tiered healthcare systems for better or for worse. Economically tiered HC seems to have naturally appeared, however the premiums and exorbitant cost seem to have remained. A look at the economic problems caused by HC dictate that a change is in order.  EV, what exactly do you propose?

Last edited by Thundersnow (07-25-2008 11:48 PM)

EscapeVelocity wrote:

In the Health Care world in the US, Hyundais and Kias arent on offer.

That is complete and utter bullshit and it's obvious you haven't had sufficient experience with the HC industry (as a consumer or otherwise) to be able to comment on it rationally.

There is absolutely competition in the field of medical care, leading to some doctors offering lower-cost services than other doctors.

And when THAT fails, you can just show up at the ER and get indigent care for FREE because other people bothered to be productive and pay taxes.