ot health care
 

On 2009-09-19 12:40:36 -0400, "Fred" said:

On 19-Sep-2009, David LaCourse wrote:

he Chesuncook is nowhere near the Rapid, Fred. You are thinking of
the West Branch of the Penobscott. Floated it last fall and took some
nice brook trout and landlocked salmon.

You are right - Its been a long time
I read where the inn was sold and there is trouble in Chesuncook Village

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/ne...03nemitz.shtml

The brook trout were beautiful and VERY tasty and the salmon were great also
and
I am leaving for Fawn Lake tomw

Fred

Yeah. Heard about that squabble a couple of years ago. I think it is
all over now. Never have fished the lake, but try to get up to The Big
Eddy once in awhile. Lots of very big fish in the Eddy. It certainly
is a beautiful part of the country.

Enjoy Fawn Lake. From the pictures I saw, it looks like a wonderful
place to wet a fly.

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-19 11:45:29 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

David LaCourse wrote:
Tim, I just discovered something about health care in your country and
in the UK.

Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have
been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times
that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with almost
all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose, YOU pay.
If only those two systems could be implemented here in the States and
you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT, it ain't
gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much money to the
president and Congress.

Tort reform has been implemented in Texas and while it saves
doctors about $50 million a year in premiums it hasn't dropped
the health care costs of the consumer one friggin' whit, much
less drastically. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in
fact.

Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower
health care costs that we do? You continuously bitch and moan about
everything in the U.S. of A, but you do nothing to help. You have no
ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a
dreaming fool. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to
succeed. I know, I know: The Dems get much of their treasury from
trial lawyers.............. your slip is showing.

Davey

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:


Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower
health care costs that we do? You continuously bitch and moan about
everything in the U.S. of A, but you do nothing to help. You have no
ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a
dreaming fool. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to
succeed. I know, I know: The Dems get much of their treasury from
trial lawyers.............. your slip is showing.

If they'd ****ed up your prostrate treatment you'd be singing a
different tune.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
David LaCourse wrote:
Canada limits payments in medical lawsuits to $300,000. There have
been incidents in the U.S. where the payment is more than 10 times
that. Also, the UK has a no-win/pay system which does away with
almost all frivolous lawsuits. You sue your care giver, you lose,
YOU pay. If only those two systems could be implemented here in the
States and you would see healthcare costs go down drastically. BUT,
it ain't gonna happen. The trial attorney lobbyists give too much
money to the president and Congress.

Tort reform has been implemented in Texas and while it saves
doctors about $50 million a year in premiums it hasn't dropped
the health care costs of the consumer one friggin' whit, much
less drastically. Yet another Republican myth with no basis in
fact.

Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower
health care costs that we do? ...

If you want to read a clear-headed, brutally honest, nonpartisan
essay on what is wrong with the American health-care industry you
should read this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

You have no
ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a
dreaming fool.

The word you're trying to use is smarmy.

Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to
succeed. ...

Tort reform is a Republican red herring.

--
Ken Fortenberry

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-19 16:22:00 -0400, rw said:

David LaCourse wrote:


Could it, just possibly, be the reason that UK and Canada have lower
health care costs that we do? You continuously bitch and moan about
everything in the U.S. of A, but you do nothing to help. You have no
ideas but back a swarmy president who will go down in history as a
dreaming fool. Tort reform is a necessity if health care is to
succeed. I know, I know: The Dems get much of their treasury from
trial lawyers.............. your slip is showing.

If they'd ****ed up your prostrate treatment you'd be singing a different tune.

And if the dog didn't stop to take a **** he would have caught the
rabbit. I went in expecting the worse because of how big the GS was.
If I came out alive, I would have been happy. We were fortunate enough
to have found a perfect team. The same doctor did the same procedure
on two friends. Both of those procedures were also successful.

Dave

ot health care
 

On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

Tort reform is a Republican red herring.

Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. It will never work here
because trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress.

And yes, he is smarmy.

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry said:
Tort reform is a Republican red herring.

Tort reform works in Canada and the UK.

That may be, but as Texas proves tort reform doesn't lower
health care costs in the US. The cost of defensive medicine
is grossly exaggerated as is the cost of lawsuits. They are
but a drop in the bucket and a distraction.

If physicians would keep their house in order and discipline
the incompetents instead of covering their asses there would
not be a need for tort reform. As it is lawsuits are the last
resort against the incompetent and if you've ever been involved
in a medical malpractice lawsuit you'd realize just how difficult
it is to prove incompetence and how few lawsuits are frivolous.

It's not tort reform that makes single payer a better health care
system. What makes single payer better is it removes the profit
motive from health care. Some things just don't fit the capitalist
mold and health care is one of them.

--
Ken Fortenberry

ot health care
 

On Sep 19, 6:19*pm, David LaCourse wrote:

If I came out alive, I would have been happy.

O.k., now, THAT explains a lot.

g,

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-09-19 16:30:19 -0400, Ken Fortenberry
said:

Tort reform is a Republican red herring.

Tort reform works in Canada and the UK. It will never work here because
trial lawyers give to much money to the president and congress.

And yes, he is smarmy.


I'm not really convinced the malpractice thing is a major cause for the
difference in health care costs between US and Canada or anywhere. There
are a lot of other differnces, and it is pretty complex. For example, I
think Ken may have mentioned that in a single payer system, there is a
lot less that has to be invested in administrative costs to deal with
collecting from and fighting with insurance companies. There are also
other reasons why the payouts in Canadian cases are so low....the person
on the receiveing end doesn;t have to pay a lot of extra bills to fix
the mistake. There are a lot of other considerations as well, Canadian
doctors don't make as much as US doctors, they don;t have the
educational debt to pay off as much as US doctors (they still have that
debt, its just not as much). The whole health care thing is so very
complex that I don't think it can be boiled down into a simple issue.

Tim Lysyk

ot health care
 

David LaCourse wrote:
Our government is already an animal in the process of eating itself.

Dave
You still haven't answer the question: Can you sue your health care
giver, your doctor, because he did what he thought was correct?






In most states, and in the federal system, there is a legal doctrine
called "sovereign immunity" that prevents or limits the right to sue the
government. another reason a governmental health plan ought to make tort
reformers happy.

jeff