| Author |
|
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 5:45pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Mike you tear it apart in your mind. History, reality are on my side.
You claim to have a knowledge of economics history?
How about regular history?
Without the aid of Google?
"Honestly, Michael, I don't think so."
Yeah, think so. You misunderstand quite a bit of what I am saying because of the limitations of the forum and time. We're not going to have an economics debate here of any substance because one would have to go over perhaps 100s of years of economic history.
You seem to believe free trade was one founding beliefs of this nation. It wasn't.
I will await the retort.
Edited by Michael Retour on 17 September 2008 at 5:48pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 6:09pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Richards what's your health care plan for America?
Regulation.
1. Take away some of the strict control the insurance companies have over services and put it in the hands of the doctors. This means tests and medications the doctors feel are necessary trump what the insurance companies say. No more prescribing an adequate substitute that kind of works for a better drug just because the insurance companies don't want to pay for the higher priced drug.
2. Put in checks and balances where prices for all medical goods and services are periodically audited and anything out of line results in harsh financial fines to the offending party.
3. Get rid of frivolous law suits by making the losing side pay all legal fees for both sides. Put a cap on the amount a lawyer can receive from a judgement. It would no longer be a percentage of the award. It would a percentage up until it hit the cap. Then if someone is awarded 12 million dollars for the loss of a child through negligence on the part of a doctor, hospital, etc. and getting one-third (4million) they would get a lesser amount. Maybe, put a cap of 1 million for the lawyer in the case of a death. They would get one-third of the award, as they would now, but only up to the cap. So for the 12 million dollar award they would get 1 million. Each type of malpractice would be applied to a tiered award plan so lesser things had lower caps and bigger things had higher caps.
By putting all the legal fees back onto the loser (or in a settlement, the payee) it would make people think twice about filing a frivolous claim.
4. Drug prices are higher in the US to recoupe R&D. Since other countries put caps on what can be charged for drugs in their country it puts all the costs on the US prices where there is no cap. So, regulate the US drug companies so that the drugs are sold for the same price every where. Of course they could still donate drugs or offer low cost drugs to third world countries that can't afford the higher costs, but that shouldn't apply to any industrialized nation. Since they couldn't lower the price in the US down to the level of other countries and still be able to do R&D, they would raise the price to other countries so it was a level playing field. If a regulation in a country prevented it from being sold at a fair price for everyone, then the drug companies just stop selling to that country until they agree to a fair price.
Edited to answer Jason and adding the following:
Doh, I'd mentioned that earlier in the thread (days ago) and wasn't even thinking about it when I responded above.
5. Offer a low cost optional government health insurance that any one could opt into. If your place of business offered insurance, if you wanted to opt into the government plan instead, all the premiums the employer would have paid for you still get paid, but go into the government plan instead. If that amount was greater than what the government plan would have cost then the full amount is still paid and that overage is applied to lower income people to offset their costs as their employers likely don't offer insurance. Along with that, there would be tax breaks given to companies that offered insurance to their employees. The better the insurance, the bigger the tax break.
Since the people at the lowest end of the spectrum are already eligible for free health care though the government, that wouldn't change.
Edited by Scott Richards on 17 September 2008 at 7:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Talley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5123
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 6:13pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Thanks to Mark Evanier for the link...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4636
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 7:25pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Scott, one thing I don't see in your healthcare plan is how to address the problem of the millions of uninsured people in the US (for that matter, I don't see it in McCain's plan either, which is why I'd question Michael's assertion that it's the best plan).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 5268
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 7:30pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Thank you, Brian. That was fun !
---------
And Jodi... " Freedom Francs "... not anymore! The francs are not even French anymore... they are from Swiss...
We have Euros now... And the funny thing is only us French can make a joke about it, because " l'Euro " in French sounds like " le rot " which means " the burp" ! So our not so new money is a burp !
But back to YOUR elections ! Please go on people !
Edited by Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle on 17 September 2008 at 7:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 7:35pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Cut and pasted # 5 into my last reply
Edited by Scott Richards on 17 September 2008 at 7:39pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| If you have problem with some sort of language I use say so. Deviant
angle? C'mon Mike just admit we're in the greatest collapse in history
and these boobs that run banks etc. are clowns that would not have been
hired when my father was in finance. You're not even old enough to
know what a functioning economy is are you? If your profile is correct
you've never seen an agro-industrial USA so how can you possibly sit
there, with Richard Boone no less, and pontificate on economics? |
|
|
Well, that should have made it especially easy to dispute my statments. You''ve never yet been able to do so, without recourse, that is, to telling me I had been brainwashed by the man. Not even when it came to your beloved golden age of the 1950s, isn't that right, old timer?
When you stated that mortgages were paid off sooner in the 195os and 1960s, and I reminded you of the obvious facts of mortgages, why couldn't you correct my statement that a thirty-year mortgage hasn't changed? Indeed, why couldn't refute the fact that average payoff tiome is actually less these days than then? When I reminded you that the average family spent twice as much on their monthly food allowance in the 1950;s as now, why couldn't you tell me I was mistaken? When I reminded you of the inflation index of the fifties and sixties as opposed to the inflation index of just the last thirty-years...why couldn't refute my statements?
QUOTE:
| I
find your comments interesting but not serious. I don't find you crazy
except to the extent you believe McCain's intent, the Fed, the BLS,
etc. |
|
|
This from the same cat who didn't know the difference between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve? The same old man who expounded at length upon the Employment Situation Release...but who had never actually read one for himself?
QUOTE:
| Seriously, if you were born in '69 you have never even
seen a functioning US economy. You've seen decay all your life and
somehow someone got it into your head this is prosperity and we're
going through a "correction" lol, whatever that means. |
|
|
My...you are feeling old, today, aren't you?
QUOTE:
| Correction means what? The market (is is alive) is correcting itself? |
|
|
If reducing an actual term to the level of a third-grader helps you to understand, yes. Why not simply admit that you mistook my correction comment to refer to the stock market, when it was actually offered in a discussion about the housing bubble.
Here's the thing, you didn't know the distinction in context between the two usages, did you? You didn't have a clue.
QUOTE:
| And,
please don't compare me to the Von Mises etc. schools of nonsense. If
you have any idea what the nation was based on economically you'd have
said so. |
|
|
You mean like your three generations removed notion of what you think our economy is based on? Or your ridiculous idea that a thirty-year mortgage was somehow not quite a thirty-year mortgage in 1957? Michael, you've said nothing with any direct relevance on the economic situation of today.
When I suggest spending cuts in discretionary and even mandatory expenditures as the first step in any relevant reform, you mistake the very meaning of mandatory expenditure and, instead, firmly believe that I am suggesting that we could "end all welfare programs tomorrow." When we mentioned the Bear-Stearns deal, you mistated the very nature of notional value in a fundamental sense. It goes on and on, Michael.
Michael, you're problem is that your daddy isn't writing your posts for you. I can only trust he would have more than a layman's pessimism to support his position.
QUOTE:
| You've read Hamilton's Reports? Lincoln's economic
adviser Carey's books? I doubt it. Don't confine yourself to the
garbage put out by the government to hide their failures. Get into the
meat of the matter. |
|
|
So, that is your problem? That you're just an old man growing older; scared to death of the world around him and all that he doesn't understand anymore?
Is that why you don't understand any real world solution to the derivatives market, and instead suggest, with a straight face, scrapping the entire global economic system...rather than the obvious remedy of mark to market and a revival of the uptick trigger as a starting point? Why you offer comment on Employment Releases you have clearly never read, much less understood? Why you continually misstate basic economic theory? Why you don't even understand the premise of notional value in a derivatives exchange? Or why you talk about weather derivatives as though they were something out of the ordinary, rather than stating their function as a price determiner in, for instance, the utilities industry?
Hamilton and Carey? Who the was the first person to even mention the American School in this thread, as it certainly wasn't you? Oh, but that's right...it was your dear old Pops who had actually possessed any direct market knowledge in your family.
QUOTE:
| Richard Boone. I am shocked at this avatar. |
|
|
Here's the spooky part...I believe you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 8:32pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Michael wrote:
| LTCM? I don't care if it was 20 years ago. It was systemic. Yeah, here we sit: worse off than then. |
|
|
And we've just somehow jumped over the ten years in between? I see it now. Weren't you touting this same drivel ten years ago? I can only imagine your response to the stiock market crash of 1987. Well, if you're lucky enough to live that long, you'll still be predicting the immediate collapse of the global economy ten years from now. If you think you can make through the next year of recession, without blowing your brains out that is...
QUOTE:
| Obama? Worthless and has no answers. |
|
|
Whatever.
QUOTE:
| To me, we don't have a candidate. |
|
|
Agreed...grudgingly.
QUOTE:
| And,
no I am not talking about rebuilding the bankrupt system -- central
bankers are and whatever you are you are not a central banker. You a
guy, like me except younger, who has never seen an economic powerhouse
in his life because you're too young. Born in 1969 makes you 40 and
believe me we don't have the industrial capacity we did 40 years ago by
a long shot. |
|
|
Ah, the real root of the problem. A deficiency in the grasp of basic mathematics.
QUOTE:
| Ask your old man, or some old man. |
|
|
I would, but the last old man I asked told me he hadn't ever read an Employment Release and didn't know an uptick trigger from a buy trigger when it came to the derivatives market. Then, he suggested I might have been brainwashed and that the global economy was already...let me quote the old guy, here..."kaput."
QUOTE:
| You swallow every government stat as if it was right from God's mouth to your ear. What a surprise you are in for. |
|
|
Every stat? Michael, what the fuck would you know about reading any statistics?
I thought we'd settled that one.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5744
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 9:35pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Get rid of frivolous law suits by making the losing side pay all legal fees
for both sides. Put a cap on the amount a lawyer can receive from a
judgement. It would no longer be a percentage of the award. It would a
percentage up until it hit the cap. Then if someone is awarded 12 million
dollars for the loss of a child through negligence on the part of a doctor,
hospital, etc. and getting one-third (4million) they would get a lesser
amount. Maybe, put a cap of 1 million for the lawyer in the case of a
death. They would get one-third of the award, as they would now, but
only up to the cap. So for the 12 million dollar award they would get 1
million. Each type of malpractice would be applied to a tiered award plan
so lesser things had lower caps and bigger things had higher caps.
By putting all the legal fees back onto the loser (or in a settlement, the
payee) it would make people think twice about filing a frivolous claim.
Many states already have a cap on the percentage any attorney working
on a contingency can get. Frivolous litigation is mostly jive, fostered by
the insurance industry and their lobbyists. Many states already have
frivolous litigation statutes where plaintiffs, generally middle class to
poorer people, are accused of fraud At the same time bad faith claims
against insurers are rarely successful because insurance companies have
been judicially encouraged to breach their contracts. Moving to a fee
shifting model would result in less access for poor to middle class
claimants. Tort reform is by no means a cure all for health care access
problems we face. But what it could do is result in less stringent
standards of care. Tort law tends to be a great equalizer.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robin Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1323
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:14pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
"The U.S. is generally considered to be superior to Canada in it's
ability to deliver care for a variety of life threatening illnesses
including malignancy and rare pathologies as well as for critical care
patients. The incidence of patients crossing the border from Canada to
the U.S. as opposed to vice versa is significant.
Also, Canada is not an important contributor to the development of new medical technologies and drugs. "
Good to know.
Doesn't change the reality that I couldn't afford treatment if I was living in the US and had a life-threatening illness and surprisingly,neither can many Americans apparently.
RT
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Jeff Alan Hays
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:16pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Lack of tort reform is one of the most damaging threats facing medicine in America at this point. The quality of health care has been drastically changed because of it. The cost of malpractice insurance and the number of claims have skyrocketed over the past 30 years. Claims made against hospitals, physicians and other health care providers are numerous and not infrequently paid by malpractice insurance providers to reduce the cost of going to trial- even if they and the defendant feel no wrong has been committed.
Numerous and high payouts have also increased the cost to ALL physicians- even those not involved in any "malpractice" case. This in turn has led to physicians abandoning risky areas of medicine (OB, neurosurgery) retiring early or over-ordering tests for protection. This in turn has impacted on the care of patients. This is the cost to society levied by the current litigation system.
Scott's ideas are very good. I would reduce those rewards even further (and some states have)- particularly the fee received by attorneys as there is no logical or ethical reason why they should collect such high amounts.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeff Alan Hays
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:21pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"Doesn't change the reality that I couldn't afford treatment if I was
living in the US and had a life-threatening illness and
surprisingly,neither can many Americans apparently."
Though the health care system is damaged in America, movement toward the Canadian system would be even worse. If you lived in America, you have a better chance of receiving high level treatment than in Canada. If you are indigent in America, or on Medicaid, you are still more likely to receive an emergent MRI or various treatments than in Canada. The hospitals and physicians frequently eat these charges.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
