Putin calls USA a parasite on the world economy!

[Gator]

 
EVERYONE WILL FEEL THE PAIN

I have walked the dog and watched the CNBC Kudlow report tonight rather than the PBS newshour.  SF&EE, it says a lot that you did not vote for Pelosi, given that it placed you in a very small minority. 
 
I see that tort reform is still being discussed.  The Bowles Simpson Commission reccommended "... tort reform as a way to reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenditure."  Yes, indeed it would save money, particularly in comprehensive testing to defend possible future litigation.  Just think about the displacement this would create in the legal profession.  Attorneys will scream.
 
Speaking of screaming, consider three alternative income tax reform plans recommended by Simpson Bowles Commission:
 
 

• Reduce the tax brackets to three personal brackets and one corporate rate while eliminating all credits and deductions. Without any credits or deductions (including the EITC and mortgage interest deductions), the 3 tax rates would be 8, 14 and 23 percent.
   
• Increase the personal deduction to $15,000, create 3 tax brackets (15, 25 and 35%); repeal or significantly curtail a number of popular tax deductions (including the state and local deduction and the mortgage interest deduction); and eliminate other tax expenditures.
   
• Defer to Congress to develop tax reforms by 2012, but increase taxes automatically for each year Congress fails to act.

Accountants will scream.   

My point is that the whole nation will be screaming if our government takes the steps necessary to balance the budget.  Can you imagine the long line of complainers trying to lobby their politicians.   Hopefully our politicians will have the cojones to vote for the needed cuts and reforms. 
 
I will gladly take my prorated share of pain if I see that the pain is spread across everyone.  The Commission even added some pain for the low income with two Medicaid recommendations:
 
 

• Assign more low-income individuals into Medicaid managed care.
   
• Increase Medicaid co-pays.

 
 
Until I see a comprehensive plan, however, I am against higher taxes.

[SFandEE]

SFandEE

A lot of what goes on in fora such as this one is based on sharing experience.

The Supreme Court only hears cases where a party can show direct harm, and not conjecture.

Of course this is a discussion forum and not the Supreme Court, but trying to keep discussions somewhat 'real' is always good.

'Institutional decisions that result in death..' sounds like one of the healthcare arguments based on unfounded fear.. or is there any first hand experience you wish to share?

http://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/health_insurance/kaiser-kidney-transplant-program.htm


I have two personal stories where insurance and/or hospitals were involved in very negative physical and financial consequences in health.  There are likely others I do not know, because of the nature of the problem.


Whether I do have your criteria for sharing or not does not change the intelligence of the position that there are business people who are critical in the healthcare process that choose the death or neglect of individuals for profit through operational neglect.  Think cancer patient negotiating their care with a low-level phone answerer when they should be focusing on their health.


http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/106710




Is a CEO of United Healthcare paying himself 1.6 billion productive or parasite.  How many million of cancer patients could have received better care with a CEO that could get by on $500,000 a year?


http://www.startribune.com/business/11093081.html


Is  he a job creator or a parasite?

[BC]

Sorry, sometimes people die.

Let's imagine, I'm a surgeon. There was a shooting in the city and I have a patient. His relatives shout at me, "If he dies after the surgery, we'll sue you!" The chances of his survival are extremely low. I tell them, "The surgery will cost you $5,000 plus $100,000 to cover my malpractice insurance." That's capitalism in action.

One thing I have noted over the years is that Judges presiding over civil and criminal court cases are increasingly restricted as to the judgements they can issue.

It's almost like an arm of the government with hands tied and that's bad.

[OlgaH]

Olga,

you sound like you are close to the industry.  I do a bit of adjudication myself.  After a while it's pretty easy to spot those with nefarious intent.  I do lean towards fair and honest treatment for those with reasonable claims.

Yes, actually we do. And we work not only for plaintiffs but for defendants too. I have opportunity to watch the system from inside, and I have opportunity to hear statements, depositions, testimonies from all sides before case goes to mediation or court, and after I hear the case during mediation or trial.

We had a case in Orlando court when a woman slipped on yogurt in the Orlando airport. Because of her preexisting conditions, more over her lies about her preexisting conditions and tax declaration (she did not declare less then 10K she got for a year when she worked as a babysitter) she did not get so much just 15K to cover her medical expenses. And it is not only case.

We have friends who are doctors running their own clinics and they admit during the "kitchen" conversation that they (please pardon my language by their own words) f-d up and now have to pay... how much depends on their insurance lawyers, plaintiffs lawyers and the jury. Most cases we worked on were settled during mediations.

[BC]

http://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/health_insurance/kaiser-kidney-transplant-program.htm


I have two personal stories where insurance and/or hospitals were involved in very negative physical and financial consequences in health.  There are likely others I do not know, because of the nature of the problem.


Whether I do have your criteria for sharing or not does not change the intelligence of the position that there are business people who are critical in the healthcare process that choose the death or neglect of individuals for profit through operational neglect.  Think cancer patient negotiating their care with a low-level phone answerer when they should be focusing on their health.


http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/106710




Is a CEO of United Healthcare paying himself 1.6 billion productive or parasite.  How many million of cancer patients could have received better care with a CEO that could get by on $500,000 a year?


http://www.startribune.com/business/11093081.html


Is  he a job creator or a parasite?

but so far, the lobbyists are winning this war.

Sorta says it all or?

Healthcare costs will rise to take care of the baby boomers.. there is no way around it.  That makes it more important than ever to get it right now.

First ban lobbyists.. Clear the beltway entirely of this disease...

Then lets talk.

[Gator]

Is  he a job creator or a parasite?

The pay is huge and perhaps was more about performance based incentives and bonuses rather than salary. 
 
Executive compensation is the responsibility of the Board of Directors who are charged with getting the best CEO to run the company.  So you should seek to terminate the Board.  And because the BOD is elected by shareholders, you should relieve the shareholders of their stock.
 
Where do you draw the line?   Who decides if not the shareholders and the elected Board?
 
 

[Gator]

BC, You are a NIght Owl.  Hoo!  Hoo!

This woodpecker is calling it a night.

[SFandEE]

Gator I have to believe you are informed enough about boards and CEOs and corporate governance to know that this is a major form of institutional/government corruption.


If Wall St. reward Q to Q growth and if a CEO can create Q to Q growth by denying or delaying health care to someone who is dying and will become less expensive once they die.


What is the incentive for the CEO--give healthcare or deny/delay healtcare.  Thus we have institutional operations designed to deny the sick their care.  Bad system.




Secondly, if this were a competitive market--what could the 2nd best candidate do for just $800,000,000 or $400,000,000 or $200,000,000 or $100,000,000 or $50,000,000.


What amount of money do you have to pay a CEO to get a good job? Really, $1.6 billion--that's a good negotiation for the stock holders?

[SANDRO43]

Dire times call for drastic changes :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rauZMrXqRu0[/youtube]

Lyrics (refrain):

Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira               Ah! It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
les aristocrates à la lanterne!     Aristocrats to the lamp-post
Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira               Ah! It'll be fine, It'll be fine, It'll be fine
les aristocrates on les pendra!   The aristocrats, we'll hang them!
.....

[BC]

Yes, actually we do. And we work not only for plaintiffs but for defendants too. I have opportunity to watch the system from inside, and I have opportunity to hear statements, depositions, testimonies from all sides before case goes to mediation or court, and after I hear the case during mediation or trial.

Olga,

all I can say is that it's a tough business.  Professionals, whether it be someone who changes tires or heart valves do mess up.. It's a human thing and absolutely nobody is perfect.  That's why insurance exists.

Adjudication is a tough business and it's not all about being unreasonable.  Substantiated damages should be compensated, but once a client thinks they have somehow won the lottery things tend to get messy and expensive.  I deal mostly with property cases so am somewhat immune to the emotions that escalate healthcare issues, but still get faced with those who simply will not let go of the bone...  In many cases, after lawyers take their cut the outcome is the same or even less.

[BC]

BC, You are a NIght Owl.  Hoo!  Hoo!

This woodpecker is calling it a night.

Yeah, following you shortly... We take an afternoon siesta to make up.. Simply too hot her to work all day...

[OlgaH]

The pay is huge and perhaps was more about performance based incentives and bonuses rather than salary. 
 

Plus add the profit they get from Medicare that pays for incurable cancer stages.

WASHINGTON - Medicare officials said Wednesday that the program would pay the $93,000 cost of the prostate cancer drug Provenge, an innovative therapy that typically gives men suffering from an incurable stage of the disease an extra four months to live.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=13259783

[SFandEE]

The pay is huge and perhaps was more about performance based incentives and bonuses rather than salary. 
 
Executive compensation is the responsibility of the Board of Directors who are charged with getting the best CEO to run the company.  So you should seek to terminate the Board.  And because the BOD is elected by shareholders, you should relieve the shareholders of their stock.
 
Where do you draw the line?   Who decides if not the shareholders and the elected Board?

Gator please.  If we disagree fine, but this system is corrupted.  The CEOs sit on one another's board.  It is incestuous.  Please--I made my points.  Performance based on Q to Q.  Not quality of care provided to their customers.  If someone dies due to institutional process rather than honoring their commitment to care for the person's health what is the market rewarding?


I can't keep going back and forth on this.  It is my soul that sees a broken market when cancer patients have to negotiate with a low-level insurance employee for their health care.  I see a broken market when someone is paid $1.6 billion.  There is someone who would do that job just as well for $1.5 , $1.4, $1.3 some other number much lower.


The capitalist healthcare system is broken.  If you don't think so--let's just disagree.


By the way--name a AAA rated economy that doesn't have socialized healthcare. 




What is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US--healthcare.  Maybe our government should figure it out somehow and we should look out for fellow Americans and be a society where being an American is more than being a whore looking for a buck.

[OlgaH]

Olga,

all I can say is that it's a tough business.  Professionals, whether it be someone who changes tires or heart valves do mess up.. It's a human thing and absolutely nobody is perfect.  That's why insurance exists.

Adjudication is a tough business and it's not all about being unreasonable.  Substantiated damages should be compensated, but once a client thinks they have somehow won the lottery things tend to get messy and expensive.  I deal mostly with property cases so am somewhat immune to the emotions that escalate healthcare issues, but still get faced with those who simply will not let go of the bone...  In many cases, after lawyers take their cut the outcome is the same or even less.

BC, what I like about the judicial system in the US is the trial by jury even in the health care issues, where both sides present their side, their experts, their evidence, their investigation. Yes nobody is perfect and insurance exists to determine who has to pay for mistakes, negligence, irresponsibility that cost people lives.

[SFandEE]

BC, what I like about the judicial system in the US is the trial by jury even in the health care issues, where both sides present their side, their experts, their evidence, their investigation. Yes nobody is perfect and insurance exists to determine who has to pay for mistakes, negligence, irresponsibility that cost people lives.

A lot of the powerful oligopolies are now creating small print where consumer sign away their rights to litigation for arbitration where the powerful appoint a favorable adjudicator of the case.  Since the adjudicator is a for profit entity and the profit comes from the companies--the cases are almost always found in favor of the entity that gives them their profit.

[OlgaH]

A lot of the powerful oligopolies are now creating small print where consumer sign away their rights to litigation for arbitration where the powerful appoint a favorable adjudicator of the case.  Since the adjudicator is a for profit entity and the profit comes from the companies--the cases are almost always found in favor of the entity that gives them their profit.

Depends on a case. But my husband and I read everything and especially what is written in small print before to sign anything.

Predominately we are retained to handle catastrophic injury and death cases. Insurance companies usually settle cases during mediation. It is in their best interest. There was a case when we asked for 500K at mediation, but the insurance company refused and we went to trial. The jury gave 1.4 million.

[SFandEE]

we are retained

The money to retain you comes from.........

[OlgaH]

The money to retain you comes from.........

Law firms, clients and insurance companies we sign a contract with, and also from settlements. 

[Muzh]

I also remember driving with my father on our way to Linate's airport in the early 1950s past a plant of ACNA, a company producing colourants, and being told that they had a high indidence of cancer among their workers. After 60+ years, they are still cleaning up the environment at their only surviving Italian site.

Most probably aniline exposure.

[Muzh]

Sorry, sometimes people die.

Let's imagine, I'm a surgeon. There was a shooting in the city and I have a patient. His relatives shout at me, "If he dies after the surgery, we'll sue you!" The chances of his survival are extremely low. I tell them, "The surgery will cost you $5,000 plus $100,000 to cover my malpractice insurance." That's capitalism in action.

This is the most sorryass example I've ever heard.

[Muzh]

The pay is huge and perhaps was more about performance based incentives and bonuses rather than salary. 
 
Executive compensation is the responsibility of the Board of Directors who are charged with getting the best CEO to run the company.  So you should seek to terminate the Board.  And because the BOD is elected by shareholders, you should relieve the shareholders of their stock.
 
Where do you draw the line?   Who decides if not the shareholders and the elected Board?

Elected by shareholders. Ha! Do you really have a choice to elect a BOD comprised of reformers or just "good ol' boys?"

[Faux Pas]

Gator please.  If we disagree fine, but this system is corrupted.  The CEOs sit on one another's board.  It is incestuous.  Please--I made my points.  Performance based on Q to Q.  Not quality of care provided to their customers.  If someone dies due to institutional process rather than honoring their commitment to care for the person's health what is the market rewarding?


I can't keep going back and forth on this.  It is my soul that sees a broken market when cancer patients have to negotiate with a low-level insurance employee for their health care.  I see a broken market when someone is paid $1.6 billion.  There is someone who would do that job just as well for $1.5 , $1.4, $1.3 some other number much lower.


The capitalist healthcare system is broken.  If you don't think so--let's just disagree.


By the way--name a AAA rated economy that doesn't have socialized healthcare. 




What is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US--healthcare.  Maybe our government should figure it out somehow and we should look out for fellow Americans and be a society where being an American is more than being a whore looking for a buck.

It would appear your problem "in general" is with the rich. Rich and a republican is an absolute no no too I suppose? 


But to expound on your healthcare points. Capitol investment is what has driven the healthcare worldwide for the last 100 or so years. Without it the advances in medical science would not have happened. Plainly, healthcare costs money and in our capitalist system most all aspects of healthcare is profit driven. If you remove the profit from healthcare the first thing you'll see disappear is research and development. The advances with stop and the quality of personal care will grow stagnant and dissipate.


The CEO receiving 1.6 bil answers only to his board. It has nothing to do with your personal opinion on the extravagance of his salary. You can only vote with your feet. If you disagree with the company or board policies which pays this guy, don't use the company. Find another which pays their CEO 500K if that will make you feel better. What you are proposing is that the lower the pay for these professionals means increased passion to the customer. You have nothing or provided nothing that would prove that.


Obviously you are a proponent of socialized medicine? This is the basis of your position no?

[BC]

But to expound on your healthcare points. Capitol investment is what has driven the healthcare worldwide for the last 100 or so years. Without it the advances in medical science would not have happened. Plainly, healthcare costs money and in our capitalist system most all aspects of healthcare is profit driven. If you remove the profit from healthcare the first thing you'll see disappear is research and development. The advances with stop and the quality of personal care will grow stagnant and dissipate.

FP

In most scenarios capital investments in machines and other equipment are already included in current costs.

I the profits seen in healthcare are for a good part driven by defensive medicine, or overprescribing tests and fancy diagnostics so that a doctor can't be sued because some test was not done that may have discovered something.

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.

Of course the healthcare industry will be the last to start complaining about defensive medicine.  The data is old so probably has doubled or more by now. Just playing scenarios in my head,  universal healthcare without tort reform may exacerbate these costs, making it even more costly in the US.  Beware of any political party that pushes healthcare without tort reform.

I don't think tort reform has to be difficult to achieve.  Compensatory damages are quite ok but it's the punitive damages for emotional distress, pain and other non tangible items that make up a part of the overall costs.  I haven't a clue as to how much, but maybe Olga can give us an idea what the compensatory vs punitive damage ratio is.  A first step might be to limit punitive damages.

Here's a thesis I ran across describing the situation in Germany where medicine is 'socialized' or 'insurance mandated' or whatever else you want to call it.  http://rile.brinkster.net/Thesis/wieland.pdf  It's pretty hefty reading, but might be interesting for some like Olga to try and sum up the differences between US and Germany.  I'm still trying to dig through it.

[SANDRO43]

Most probably aniline exposure.

Yes, aniline, a.k.a. phenylamine or aminobenzene, which was used quite widely to produce dyestuffs - and cancer in its handlers.

The name of the German chemical giant BASF, founded in 1865, is an acronym standing for "Badische Anilin- und Soda-Fabrik".

[Muzh]

But to expound on your healthcare points. Capitol investment is what has driven the healthcare worldwide for the last 100 or so years. Without it the advances in medical science would not have happened. Plainly, healthcare costs money and in our capitalist system most all aspects of healthcare is profit driven. If you remove the profit from healthcare the first thing you'll see disappear is research and development. The advances with stop and the quality of personal care will grow stagnant and dissipate.

FP, you have no idea how true that research and development will dissapear. Imagine TV without ads for hard on pills, I don't care pills, beautiful skin pills, eliminating smelly feet pills, sleep all night and hallucinate pills, etc.
 
Now, before you tell me that there have been OTHER advances, look at the stage of research for cancer prevention. I mean, since when? Or HIV vaccination. And the list goes on. Why such a delay? First, it is government sponsored, and second, there is no profit on this.
 
Of course, if you smell my feet in a nice, hot, summer day you'll understand why pharmaceuticals have spent billon$$$$ in the development of this drug and others. (That's billions with a B)