User Comments

1. 

   6/15/09

   jhixon2

   More like greedy lawyers making insurance so high.

   [reply]
2. 

   6/15/09

   Agit8r

   there are different sort of doctors and each are individuals, though a rather large porportion are of the "entitled" class. Add to this that the cost of medical school is murderous. Few people enter the profession for strictly altruistic reasons, and those are true saints.
   
   Whether it is reasonable to expect one to endure such a vast amount of education and resultant debt without some sort of ambition driving them through such in order to gain a certain standard of living, is rather utopian.
   
   Surely the McAllen, TX market is not the the most rewarding, and like it or not, human nature is going to drive people to attain what they believe that they are entitled to *shrugs*
   
   As for the high cost of liability insurance, blame the quacks who don't know right from left

   [reply]
3. 

   6/15/09

   jhixon2

   Doctors deserve every penny they make

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/15/09

      satijournal

      Even bad doctors?
   2. 

      6/15/09

      jhixon2

      are you on crack? why would I think that? why did you even ask that question?
4. 

   6/15/09

   Brandeisian

   The biggest problem is the insurance industry creating a massive overhead by trying to deny care as often as is possible. While doctors do share some of the blame, the general suit-happy nature of American culture does as well, as such a large portion of the increases in recent decades have gone to cover increases in the cost of malpractice insurance.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/15/09

      Agit8r

      the problem with monopolies and cartels is their propensity to hold the consumer hostage. With the medical liablility insurance industry this takes on a particularly TERRORIST nature. They try to increase profits by demonizing the people who had been BUTCHERED BY QUACKS, instead of simply refusing to insure quacks. I do not in any way characterize those who are maimed and disfigured by carelessness as "sue-happy." It is the socialistic "common good" doctrine at work
   2. 

      6/15/09

      Brandeisian

      I'm not saying that those who have been butchered shouldn't be entitled to sue, but rather it shouldn't be the primary thing in people's minds. Also, while I'm not in favor of a cap, there needs to be some sort of re-imposition of common sense on jurors, because frankly awards are wholly out of whack.
   3. 

      6/15/09

      Agit8r

      juries tend to see things from the point of view of the parties in question... part of why they are a vital part of democracy
   4. 

      6/15/09

      Brandeisian

      Well, I actually have the exact opposite viewpoint; just put a post of that up today, actually. Sympathy shouldn't be a part of democracy; rather, detachment is what is. Juries are much more apt to descend to the rule of man than to maintain the rule of law, which is the most necessary aspect of a liberal democracy.
   5. 

      6/16/09

      Agit8r

      I see your point. It can cut both ways, I suppose. The Misuse of the death penalty for instance. The indifference of juries to the defendent when only being paid $10 a day tends to be another... but that is more a matter of conpensation.
      
      Despite this, it seems that our founders feared the subversion of the rule of law by uncaring judges--an outgrowth of the british system.
5. 

   6/15/09

   libertycast1

   It's collusion over an entire industry and the negligence of antitrust.
   
   If we lower insurance costs, medical services, medical equipment, etc will compromise the difference at their profit. Part of the reason insurance costs are so high does relate to malpractice lawsuits and thus the related malpractice insurance costs, BUT this is not the entirety of the issue at all.
   
   Like I said if one cuts the other will raise.
   
   This is why we need more anti trust and more competition. Collusion is the problem and competition is the answer. Everything else is just symptoms of concern.

   [reply]
6. 

   6/16/09

   Anok

   There are far too many factors involved with the high cost of medical care. You do have doctors who are charging large amounts of money for poor medical care - usually under the guise of paying off their student loans, however their McMansions and BMW's betray them.
   
   You have insurance companies gouging whomever they can, including medical facilities and doctors by constantly denying claims until the overdue bills start affecting the cost of care at said medical facility.
   
   You have frivolous lawsuits that are inflating the malpractice premiums, which in turn raise costs for patients and insurers.
   
   You have the fact that medical costs are not even across the board and standardized for the purposes of payment by insurance companies and out of pocket payments alike.
   
   You have the companies who charge massive amounts for equipment for hospitals etc which raises costs, you have pharmaccuetical companies pushing their garbage on everyone at a large cost...the list goes on and on.

   [reply]
7. 

   6/16/09

   jeremyjanson

   Maybe healthcare should cost a lot. Maybe it's actually that important not to sell people out for a tiny share of money and we should just use subsidies to increase availability. Personally, I don't think 20% of the national economy for healthcare (about a third more then it is now; 15% in 2006 didn't have health insurance and that percentage has increased probably by about 5% since then - add in a little more for lost economic efficiency...) is unreasonable. It certainly better then most of what we spend our money on, and it's not like it doesn't create jobs.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/16/09

      Brandeisian

      There's nothing wrong with healthcare being a massive portion of the GDP, yes, but that cost shouldn't be directed towards profits for businesses and it shouldn't be at the direct and harmful expense of middle and lower class individuals.
   2. 

      6/16/09

      Anok

      I agree with Brandeisian.
      
      Making health care a large portion of national spending is one thing, but you have to remember that it's only a small part of the GDP now because most health care is completely privatized - as for profit businesses.
      
      And it is that pesky profit bit that drives up costs - everyone is out to make a buck on the lives of others. I personally think all medicine and health care should be not-for-profit industries. They'd get tax breaks for it, too. But that way, they are only charging to cover overhead and salaries. No more profiteering off the sick.
      
      It would actually solve a lot of problems.
   3. 

      6/16/09

      jeremyjanson

      The trouble is Anok that the profiteers would be replaced by civil servants, who have their own unique brand of profiteering.
   4. 

      6/16/09

      Brandeisian

      What do you mean by that? Why in the hell would civil servants want to get profit out of citizens. The purpose of government is to help people by making things easier, tough you may disagree. But government has no motive for profit, so thus it will be a better option than a greedy capitalistic corporation that wants money rather than to make you healthy.