[Rhodes22-list] Politiical- More Bad News About McCain Health Plan comment by Ugh

Ben Cittadino bcittadino at dcs-law.com
Wed Oct 29 13:57:56 EDT 2008 

Brad;

You insist on sucking me in to this tort law debate. Quickly, In NJ at
least, the "value" of an 85 year old and a 5 year old is just about the
same. The death of a child is the worst conversation I have to have with the
grieving parents  because our damages calculation is based upon the
"economic loss to the survivors".
Children are both priceless in one sense but in the cold legal calculation
in our Courts they are a negative economically (they cost money to raise). 
Thus the death of an adult who has economic responsibilities to a family can
be many millions, but an infant child, a young single adult, or an older
person near the end of their life has not as much "value" as you might
imagine. 
Punitive damages are a non-issue. They are almost never awarded, and when
they are a Judge usually minimizes them (by remitting the jury's verdict). 
Insurance companies use the threat of punitive damages to frighten people
and legislatures into " tort reform" legislation, which does nothing but
allow insurance companies to collect premiums and avoid paying legitimate
claims.

Don't get me started.

Ben C. 

Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
> 
> Ben,
> 
> How's this for a concept, (and as far as I know, it's original with
> me) my health insurance provider has a lifetime cap of two million
> dollars.  If it takes more than that to keep me alive, I'm toast.
> Let's expand that to everything - killed as a child you were worth
> most of your two million.  Lost as an 85 year old for whatever reason?
> - you've probably used up at least 1.8 million of your value.  Go for
> all the punitive damages you want, just be prepared to pay if you
> lose.
> 
> That concept sure would have saved General Aviation which tort law has
> all but killed.
> 
> Brad
> 
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hank;
>>
>> Forgive me, but I'm going to have to put "tort reform" off until after
>> the
>> election.  It's a great subject and as you might imagine I have some
>> pretty
>> strong opinions about it, but I just can't muster the energy to get into
>> that right now.
>>
>> Suffice it to say, that health insurance costs as well as physician's
>> malpractice premiums have NOTHING to do with lawsuits, and everything to
>> do
>> with insurance company mismanagment, poor investments, and the increase
>> in
>> healthcare needs caused by malpractice.
>>
>> More another time.
>>
>> Ben C.
>>
>> Hank-5 wrote:
>>>
>>> Ben,
>>>
>>> You being a ligation lawyer, how much of the cost of our healthcare can
>>> be
>>> attributed to the current system of tort law in the US.  I know when my
>>> father passed away from a massive heart attack, we were told by the
>>> hospital
>>> that they could not have saved him if he had been in the operating room
>>> at
>>> the time of the heart attack.  However, that didn't prevent the
>>> emergency
>>> room from performing about 5K worth of work on him that they ended up
>>> eating
>>> as he had no estate or health insurance.  I'm sure a good bit of what
>>> they
>>> did was to avoid any potential law suits.
>>>
>>> Hank
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/08, Ben Cittadino <bcittadino at dcs-law.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brad;
>>>>
>>>> Singapore, Sweden, Japan, Hong Kong, Iceland, France, Finland,
>>>> Anguilla,
>>>> Norway, Malta, Czech Republic, Germany, Andorra, Switzerland, Spain,
>>>> Israel,
>>>> Macau, Slovenia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Australia, Lichtenstein,
>>>> Guernsey, Luxunbourg, Netherlands, Portugal,Gibraltar, United Kingdom,
>>>> New
>>>> Zealand, Jersey,Canada,Ireland, Monaco, Greece, San Marino, Taiwan,
>>>> Italy,
>>>> Isle of Man, Cuba, and South Korea ALL HAVE A LOWER INFANT MORTALITY
>>>> RATE
>>>> THAN THE USA. (Source, CIA World Factbook, Jan 1, 2008.)
>>>> (Tootle, How about THAT source.)
>>>>
>>>> Do you think there is any more objective measure of the delivery of
>>>> quality
>>>> health care than the infant mortality rate? We can do some spectacular
>>>> things in our specialty hospitals (I should know, I had my quadruple
>>>> by-pass
>>>> surgery at Cleveland Clinic, a wonderful major center, but my surgeon
>>>> was
>>>> a
>>>> Swede, Gosta Pettersson, MD, who I highly recommend).
>>>>
>>>> The major difference I think you and I have on this subject is that I
>>>> understand WE ARE ALREADY PAYING for health care for the poor.  The
>>>> taxpayers are picking up the tab for a very inefficient and ultimately
>>>> sub-standard system.  If we include a lot more folks the economies of
>>>> scale
>>>> will cost us less.
>>>>
>>>> If you believe the poor and unemployed are in that condition by choice,
>>>> and
>>>> that the only way to get them to work is to set up the system so they
>>>> starve
>>>> to death if they don't get their fannies out of bed in the morning,
>>>> then
>>>> we
>>>> probably can't get to common ground on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> I do agree about one thing. We do spend way too much on heroic
>>>> "end-of-life"
>>>> care. I read somewhere that fully 80% of all medicare money is spent on
>>>> patients in the last three months of their lives. I sure hope if I end
>>>> up
>>>> like poor Terry Schiavo in Florida a few years ago someone has the good
>>>> grace to give me the old .45 caliber craniotomy. (Herb, I think this is
>>>> where you come in--I mean the pro-life argument, not the volunteer to
>>>> perform the craniotomy).
>>>>
>>>> Ben C.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Ben,
>>>> >
>>>> > As Ed pointed out, the New York Times, especially the editorial page,
>>>> > is hardly an unbiased source for anything.  The AP is no better. 
>>>> Take
>>>> > the Iraq war for example - the AP coverage was so slanted and
>>>> > misleading I quit paying attention to it other than out of curiosity
>>>> > to see where others were getting their information.  The coverage
>>>> from
>>>> > independent reporters such as Michael Yon, both good and bad, was
>>>> much
>>>> > better.
>>>> >
>>>> > That said, let's tackle the "health care" crisis.  First, a history
>>>> > lesson.  The whole idea of employer provided health insurance started
>>>> > during WW2 because wages were frozen and providing company sponsored
>>>> > health insurance was a way to attract workers at the same wage other
>>>> > companies were paying.  That still holds true but the costs of that
>>>> > coverage has risen dramatically.  The old adage of "you don't get
>>>> > something for nothing" still applies.  Any employee only has x amount
>>>> > of economic value to any entity, and if you force companies to
>>>> provide
>>>> > health insurance, that economic benefit will flow to the employee in
>>>> > lieu of cash wages. That is certainly true in my own personal
>>>> > situation as a collectively bargained employee.  Near the end of
>>>> every
>>>> > negotiation cycle as both sides start sharpening knives, the company
>>>> > throws down a final "this is the size of the pie" last proposal and
>>>> > then we have to determine how we want it sliced, health care or cash?
>>>> > Nothing in either of these candidates proposals will escape that
>>>> basic
>>>> > fundamental truth.
>>>> >
>>>> > What gets lost in all this election cycle marketing bullshit (and
>>>> > Obama is much better at marketing bullshit than McCain) is the real
>>>> > nature of health insurance versus health care and the
>>>> > inter-relationships of economic and social policies.  The reason most
>>>> > of us get out of bed in the morning and go to work is because we like
>>>> > to enjoy nice things, ie, housing, food, toys, etc.  When government
>>>> > intervenes in the marketplace and provides those basic things,
>>>> > especially housing and food, a large segment of the population is
>>>> > happy to stay in bed.  This is fact and President Clinton recognized
>>>> > this basic social principle and "reformed welfare" as a result.  To
>>>> > add "free" health insurance to the mix without personal
>>>> responsibility
>>>> > only adds to the problem, so one needs to tread lightly when
>>>> > government imposes itself in any fashion into the issue. We know (or
>>>> > should know) that we don't want nationalized health care.  Find me a
>>>> > country that has better health care than the United States (provided
>>>> > you can afford access) and I'll consider changing my assessment.
>>>> > Health insurance is no different than any other insurance, it is to
>>>> > provide for losses that you cannot afford.  Part of the 45 million
>>>> > Americans without health care we hear so much about are young people
>>>> > who have the opportunity to purchase health insurance but don't want
>>>> > to, some are temporarily un-employed or self employed, and some you
>>>> > are never going to get to work.
>>>> >
>>>> > Any government sponsored health care scheme is going to "break the
>>>> > bank" if you don't solve the two ends of the tails of the health care
>>>> > cost curve.  The individual must be responsible for the initial,
>>>> minor
>>>> > costs of "going to the doctor" or you get the kind of abuses that
>>>> > TennCare discovered (Tennessee's attempt at health care).  The other
>>>> > end of the tail is the vast sums of money spent on incredibly
>>>> > expensive medical treatments that are often offered to extend life by
>>>> > a few weeks or months.  I know this sounds harsh but it's economic
>>>> > reality.
>>>> >
>>>> > Both the Obama and McCain plans pose the risk of some employers
>>>> > dropping health care because the government may provide lower cost
>>>> > options.  The Obama campaign is lying (I know that's hard for you to
>>>> > imagine) when it says their plan doesn't have the same inherent risks
>>>> > associated with it.  I like the McCain plan better because it allows
>>>> > more options and responsibility to the individual. The $2500 rebate
>>>> > ($5000 for families) applies to everyone regardless of income or even
>>>> > employment.  It will in fact probably cost me money in higher taxes
>>>> > (but then what doesn't?). Of the two, I see it as the most socially
>>>> > responsible. Which plan will be the most expensive?  I don't know and
>>>> > neither do they but I do know who is going to pay for it - the same
>>>> > people who pay for everything else in this country, the "rich".
>>>> >
>>>> > None of this applies to me (except for the paying part) because
>>>> health
>>>> > insurance is covered by my collective bargaining agreement.  I'll be
>>>> > happy to give career advice to anyone looking for flying lessons if
>>>> > you want in on this "gravy train".
>>>> >
>>>> > This campaign has boiled down to "who is the better Santa Claus" in
>>>> > the closing days.  Both McCain and Obama are being irresponsible to
>>>> > some degree.
>>>> >
>>>> > Brad
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Herb Parsons
>>>> <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> The ERs are being used for this, but you're overlooking the nature
>>>> of
>>>> >> what's involved. You have to go and wait, typically for anywhere
>>>> between
>>>> >> 3-8 hours for "minor" issues. This discourages the "I don't feel
>>>> good,
>>>> >> let me go see the dr" stuff that Brad and Ed are talking about.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Personally, I'm not happy with that either. My guess is that they
>>>> could
>>>> >> clear up about 70% of the backlog at ER's by having an INS office
>>>> there
>>>> >> as well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>> >>> Brad and Ed;
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Brad- you're forgetting something. We are already paying for
>>>> healthcare
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> the uninsured. It's illegal for ER's to turn people away, insured
>>>> or
>>>> >>> not. We
>>>> >>> are just paying more, getting lousy care (because ER's are not set
>>>> up
>>>> to
>>>> >>> be
>>>> >>> primary care providers), more expensively (because ER's are
>>>> overkill
>>>> >>> (pardon
>>>> >>> the pun) in most situations, and we taxpayers are footing the bill
>>>> >>> anyway.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ed- the second post is from the AP, not NYTimes.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Best,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Ben C.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Tootle wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Mr. Philadelphia Lawyer,  The New York Times has been taken over
>>>> by
>>>> >>>> Communists.  Your source material is too biased.  Find something
>>>> with
>>>> >>>> an
>>>> >>>> American viewpoint.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Consider an alternative local newspaper such as:
>>>> >>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.asp?brd=2737
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> How is your retirement funded?  Or how was it funded?  See your
>>>> local
>>>> >>>> Philadelphia newspaper:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20179546&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Or since you like Times in the heading, consider the:
>>>> >>>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Or just go to church on sunday and get their bulletin.  Read
>>>> something
>>>> >>>> other than that Communists Rag.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Ed K
>>>> >>>>  http://www.nabble.com/file/p20218848/Philadelphia%2BBulletin.gif
>>>> >>>> Philadelphia+Bulletin.gif
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >> __________________________________________________
>>>> >> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>> to
>>>> >> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> >> __________________________________________________
>>>> >>
>>>> > __________________________________________________
>>>> > To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>> to
>>>> > http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> > __________________________________________________
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3AHealth-Care-Plans.-NYTimes-Endorses-Obama%27s-tp20208884p20229674.html
>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>> __________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3AHealth-Care-Plans.-NYTimes-Endorses-Obama%27s-tp20208884p20231981.html
>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/POLITICAL%3AHealth-Care-Plans.-NYTimes-Endorses-Obama%27s-tp20208884p20232443.html
Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list