National Review: Welcome to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Quote:

---

The net result was a savings of $1,078 per year to the typical Texas household.

---

So what was the increase in medical premiums in Texas for the same time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. M. Ray Perryman's bio

His studies have played a role in the creation and retention of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

---

:lmao

He's a walking, talking stimulus package!

Of course you'll believe him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So what was the increase in medical premiums in Texas for the same time?

---

are you saying medical savings don't affect premiums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So what was the increase in medical premiums in Texas for the same time?

---

Premiums go up because costs go up. Tort reform has far more tangible benefits than not. Why is the liberal lerdership against tort reform? The tort reform that they were trying to pass in the Senate would have been the tort reform levels in California. It seems that alot of Libs are against tort reform because the conservatives thought of it. There are no core principle beliefs as to why all the libs are against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Premiums go up because costs go up. Tort reform has far more tangible benefits than not.

---

I don't believe that the expansion of businesses that were already in Texas was a direct result of tort reform.

If you want to dodge the question, fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

are you saying medical savings don't affect premiums?

---

Well, that was indeed my question -- how much did it affect premiums?

Tell us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I don't believe that the expansion of businesses that were already in Texas was a direct result of tort reform.

If you want to dodge the question, fine.

---

Premiums go up because cost goes up. There are many reasons for rising costs. People not paying their bills. Increasing prices to offset the expected lawsuits. etc.

"increase in doctors which allowed for more competition"

do you really think sick people shop around for cheaper doctors?

the health care system is so fucking complicated, doctors and their staff have no idea of what what is going to cost, so searching for the lowest cost doctors is fool's errand.

price competition among doctors? GMAFB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Premiums go up because cost goes up. There are many reasons for rising costs. People not paying their bills. Increasing prices to offset the expected lawsuits. etc.

---

So was Texas' rate of increase in premiums lower or higher than the average state since tort reform?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So was Texas' rate of increase in premiums lower or higher than the average state since tort reform?

---

Such a liar, you just asked how it affects cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So you were against the stimulus package because the results are not tangible to you.

Why are you for tort reform?

That pretty much is in line with the overall cost of living difference between the two states.

That can't be tied to tort reform either, so you guys really have no argument that tort reform lowers health care costs.

---

The only argument I saw came from Perryman, a man who claims to have created or retained hundreds of thousands of jobs -- and his study had nothing at all to do with the tort reforms of 2003.

Maybe something a little more recent could be found, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

So was Texas' rate of increase in premiums lower or higher than the average state since tort reform?

---

idk. However has tort reform hurt texas in anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

idk. However has tort reform hurt texas in anyway?

---

I believe it has probably hurt more than a few people with legitimate medical torts that can't sue anymore.

Tort reform is sold as a panacea that will lower health care costs for consumers. For most of the consumers, that would mean a reduction in premiums, or at least the rate of increase in premiums. Has either of those things happened in Texas since 2003?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Not to mention all the money being spent inside the community, buying cars and houses- which all create and save jobs.

---

imaginary money? Did you notice anything curious about the article?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Premiums go up because costs go up. Tort reform has far more tangible benefits than not. Why is the liberal lerdership against tort reform? The tort reform that they were trying to pass in the Senate would have been the tort reform levels in California. It seems that alot of Libs are against tort reform because the conservatives thought of it. There are no core principle beliefs as to why all the libs are against it.

---

So according to you einstein the reason you are for tort reform is because you have core principals? You still haven't shown us anything to prove tort reform lowered the cots health care.

Your answer to premiums not going down is that it is because costs go up. If tort reform lowers costs then shouldn't premiums be lowered also? If tort reform does lower costs and the premiums keep rising, who did tort reform help? The same companies who are raising prices....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

It is not necessarily ALWAYS the case...but in THIS case, doing nothing leaves almost 40 million Americans with no medical insurance and the rest of us with premiums doubling every 7 years. THAT is not acceptable to me. Infact, MY premiums have MORE than doubled in the past 7 years.

If you cannot understand why the status quo is unacceptable you leave yourself open to the very things that got the democrats elected this time.

---

[The idea that republicans did nothing is hilarious. Republicans and Dems have been throwing money to the health-care system like crazy in the last sky-rocketing the funding of the National Institutes of Health, etc. The problem was that none of those measures did any good. But that just reinforces my point]

How do you know that the new situation is going to be an improvement over the status quo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

How do you know that the new situation is going to be an improvement over the status quo?

---

I guess the question to you is, how do you know it won't be an improvement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

[The idea that republicans did nothing is hilarious. Republicans and Dems have been throwing money to the health-care system like crazy in the last sky-rocketing the funding of the National Institutes of Health, etc. The problem was that none of those measures did any good. But that just reinforces my point]

How do you know that the new situation is going to be an improvement over the status quo?

---

The new situation HAS to be better than the status quo because more people will be paying in to the system, thereby decreasing the risk for all (and theoretically, if the insurers pass the savings along, decreasing the premiums for everyone), and will ABSOLUTELY cover MILLIONS more Americans than are currently covered.

Come on, man, isn't there a shred of compassion anywhere for people who work hard but don't make enough money to get health insurance now?

How is it possible that you don't see that helping people like that (and there are millions of our fellow citizens in that predicament...you may even know a few, most people do) is an improvemnt? PLEASE, have you NO sense of compassion?

"compassion"

... a four-letter word in the conservative vocabulary. Their hearts bleed, but it's black and toxic.

aka, "If you're poor, eat shit because you are shit." aka social Darwinism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

The new situation HAS to be better than the status quo because more people will be paying in to the system, thereby decreasing the risk for all (and theoretically, if the insurers pass the savings along, decreasing the premiums for everyone), and will ABSOLUTELY cover MILLIONS more Americans than are currently covered.

Come on, man, isn't there a shred of compassion anywhere for people who work hard but don't make enough money to get health insurance now?

How is it possible that you don't see that helping people like that (and there are millions of our fellow citizens in that predicament...you may even know a few, most people do) is an improvemnt? PLEASE, have you NO sense of compassion?

---

This is a political discussion, no need to be reactionary or over-emotional.

I'm not sure what this has to do with compassion. Are you saying that communism was (and is), in fact, just compassion? There's no such thing as forced compassion or forced charity.

I still don't understand how do you know that doing something has to be better. More people paying into the system will decrease the risk for all why? It depends on the risk assessment of those entering the pool. What savings will insurers have? And why would they pass those savings? Prices depend on demand and offer, not on the savings.

Do you only apply this logic to health-care? Why not to housing or food? A government program to make sure that everybody has a decent house to live in would improve the status quo, right?

Have you ever read about the concept of "unintended consequences"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mogrovejo

This is a political discussion, no need to be reactionary or over-emotional.

I'm not sure what this has to do with compassion. Are you saying that communism was (and is), in fact, just compassion? There's no such thing as forced compassion or forced charity.

I still don't understand how do you know that doing something has to be better. More people paying into the system will decrease the risk for all why? It depends on the risk assessment of those entering the pool. What savings will insurers have? And why would they pass those savings? Prices depend on demand and offer, not on the savings.

Do you only apply this logic to health-care? Why not to housing or food? A government program to make sure that everybody has a decent house to live in would improve the status quo, right?

Have you ever read about the concept of "unintended consequences"?

---

This is pathetic.

I'm going to ignore the comments about communism because they are so irrelevant to this discussion.

Your obtuseness regarding my prior answer as to the savings from a larger risk pool is, presumably, intentional (though I may be giving you credit for more critical reasoning than you possess). By forcing everyone, including the young and relatively healthy, to obtain medical insurance if they are financially able to do so, spreads the risk over a larger number of people , hence, theoretically at least, lowering the premium costs per individual.
Do you understand that.

What part of 'doing nothing means insurance premiums will double again over the next 7 years as they have doubled over the last seven' meaning that they are increasing at an unsustainable rate for us ALL, do you not get?

Speaking of logic, does it not ocur to you that the very profit motive that you reference in your observation that savings could be pocketed by insurers rather than reducing costs in a classic supply and demand model is the very REASON that lots of folks are recommending a 'public option' for insurance so that private insurers will be motivated to match the premium levels of a public option in orer to stay in business, thus perhaps being forced to pass along the savings from a reduced risk pool?

Regarding your questions about housing and food...do you live in this country? Are you unaware that government programs DO exist for public housing and food stamps ( thus addressing the housing and food questions you raise?)

I do apologize for getting emotional. It is not my normal reaction, but when you said that you thought my prior comments were hysterical I got angry.

Don't dish out what you are unwilling to tolerate.

lol @ latching on to tort reform.


That's a tiny, tiny piece of the problem. But that's the one we're gonna get hung up on?

I think it was Winehole that first posted that link to The Atlantic article that the NPR report was refering to. That's one of the best reads I've had concerning this whole fiasco and certainly worth a read if you didn't get a chance the first time around.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVAY

The new situation HAS to be better than the status quo because more people will be paying in to the system, thereby decreasing the risk for all (and theoretically, if the insurers pass the savings along, decreasing the premiums for everyone), and will ABSOLUTELY cover MILLIONS more Americans than are currently covered.

Come on, man, isn't there a shred of compassion anywhere for people who work hard but don't make enough money to get health insurance now?

How is it possible that you don't see that helping people like that (and there are millions of our fellow citizens in that predicament...you may even know a few, most people do) is an improvemnt? PLEASE, have you NO sense of compassion?

---

Why are you so compassionate with other people's money? Why is what you are doing, do you consider it compassion. To me being compassionate is letting someone decide his own life. He knows what is best for his family, not a government employee working with a rule book. If you have ever been in a welfare line, you would know there is nothing compassionate about the entire institution. Making it a crime to not have health insurance doesn't help anyone. Giving someone who is unemployed more entitlement to something they did not earn helps no one and hurts everyone involved. From the person who takes the money and gets used to "free" money to the politicians who see this as away to get reelected.

"compassionate with other people's money"

US and state taxpayers ALREADY pay $Bs every year supporting free public services, ERs, public hospitals. The "compassion" has been in law for decades.