Now, with George W. Bush and the GOP opposing lawsuits against HMOs (and the Dems on the opposite side), I find myself wondering ...
Aren't the two ideologies taking stances opposing their ideology? I mean, one would think telling citizens who they can sue and for how much would be "big government", but the conservatives are backing it ...
Just a thought.
But the Conservatives/Republicans want legislation which wouldn't allow citizens to sue HMOs ... a very "big government" ideology. Since when does government have the right to tell people who they can sue and for how much?
quote:
I think we determined long ago that Republican!=conservative and Democrat!=liberal.
It sucks.
(sounds like some TOS/Vulcan/Spock novel. . . Star Trek: The Omega Logic)
Conservatives believe (and I think rightly) that allowing unlimited lawsuits against HMOs is simply the first step in phasing out HM's altogether (death by lawsuit, in our highly litigous society), by driving the price of health care up again (as HMOs raise prices in order to purchase insurance against megamillion-dollar lawsuits, whether or not they're valid suits, and pass those costs along to the consumer), thus causing a public outcry, after which the government will be 'forced to step in,' and take over public health care entirely.
Then, when you get inadequate care, you won't just be fighting a company, you'll be fighting the faceless bureaucrats in Washington.. and it's not likely they'll let you sue THEM.
This would complete a process begun back in the days when Medicare and Medicaid were established. These programs were supposed to make health care affordable to the poor, but what they actually did is show the health care providers that they could raise prices as much as they wanted, because government would always pay for it. This made health care for regular folks more expensive, thus leading to the public outcry and mandated creation of HMOs... which only made the problem worse.
See, conservatives believe that the more you rely on government, the more power it has over you, and the more your freedoms are eroded.
Therefore the idea behind being against the bill is a preventative measure.
Also, it could be partly because the bill's strongest supporters are not in health care, but are actually the Trial Lawyer's Association. (Need I mention that they're mostly Democrats?) They're the ones who stand to get much richer if the bill passes.
Isn't it very "big government" to tell people who they can sue and for how much ... ?
I say we just ditch medicare all together, 'cause it really sucks. There are exactly two possibilities: you have people ripping the government, and thus everyone else, off; you have the government dictating prices. Neither is acceptable. Design a better system, 'cause this one was flawed from its inception.
And I'm not against allowing people to sue their HMOs... just suing them for far more than is reasonable.
Tell me: if the amount that a health-care provider is sued for is so high as to drive the HMO out of business, then what happens? Well, first, the insurance companies go down, due to the overabundance of claims. Second, the HMOs go down, because they don't have insurance. Third, the government "reluctantly" is "forced" to take over medicare for the entirity of the country, ala Hillary Clinton, thus outright destroying a massive portion of our economy. They'd probably take over insurance, to boot. We lose our freedom, and our independance of the government.
I'd call that price too high, wouldn't you?
[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
quote:
It's also very "big government" to force healthcare prices up,
Which means that it's also very big-government to tell people who to sue and for how much.
Ladies and gentlemen: take note. By his own definition, a liberal is someone who favors "bigger government." So, by his own admission, Omega has just admitted to being a liberal ...
[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
quote:
Third, the government "reluctantly" is "forced" to take over medicare for the entirity of the country, ala Hillary Clinton, thus outright destroying a massive portion of our economy. They'd probably take over insurance, to boot. We lose our freedom, and our independance of the government.
Now, for the hard part.
Why?
quote:
`This is not a patient bill of rights. This is an HMO and health insurance companies' bill of rights,' said House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt. His voice rising and his face growing red, he added, `In the name of God ... vote against this bill.'
Sounds like Mr. Gephardt needs to relax a bit.
Apparently, the current compromise being pushed for is largely due to Georgia Rep. Charles Norwood, a leading Republican supporter of patients' rights legislation who had long aligned himself with Democrats on the issue.
quote:
Republicans heaped praise on Norwood -- and defended him from criticism by Democrats who had worked closely with him for years.Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., reading Democrats' earlier glowing statements of praise for Norwood, added sarcastically, `That's yesterday. Today they'll have you think he's become Dr. Kevorkian,' the suicide doctor.
That sounds about right.
[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Anyway, I already discussed the merits, or at least, what I see as being wrong with the idea.
This must have been while you had your fingers in your ears and were shouting " Is not isnotisnot! Omega sucks!"
And I don't remember every saying that. Hmm. Maybe I should sue for slander or something.