Ten Immediate Benefits of HCR Bill

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??[/quote]

Listen friend. I’ve been closely watching these people for over 20 years. Mark my words. Regardless of which precise mechanisms under which it happens, we will have fully socialized single payer healthcare in what was once the United States. That has been the holy grail, the grasping groping religious mission of liberals forever. They will stop at absolutely nothing to see it.

202

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??[/quote]

Listen friend. I’ve been closely watching these people for over 20 years. Mark my words. Regardless of which precise mechanisms under which it happens, we will have fully socialized single payer healthcare in what was once the United States. That has been the holy grail, the grasping groping religious mission of liberals forever. They will stop at absolutely nothing to see it.[/quote]

I can see why you guys think that, but I just don’t believe it will happen. I have no doubt that there are plenty of full blown socialists trying their best to go all the way, but they are balanced by plenty of full blown free-market libertarians.

203

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:
<<< Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??[/quote]

Listen friend. I’ve been closely watching these people for over 20 years. Mark my words. Regardless of which precise mechanisms under which it happens, we will have fully socialized single payer healthcare in what was once the United States. That has been the holy grail, the grasping groping religious mission of liberals forever. They will stop at absolutely nothing to see it.[/quote]

I can see why you guys think that, but I just don’t believe it will happen. I have no doubt that there are plenty of full blown socialists trying their best to go all the way, but they are balanced by plenty of full blown free-market libertarians.[/quote]
Think with me for a minute here. If what you just said were true then how pray tell did this monstrous expansion of government just take place? The only “full blown” people left in the federal government in any significant numbers ARE socialists. If you think merely opposing this bill makes somebody conservative or libertarian then you have a lot to learn. It puts them to the right of the socialists which is saying almost nothing.

204

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.[/quote]

A reduction to the absurd follows.

The state of Michigan has 200 families: 100 Borrek families, all alike, and 100 Antiborrek families, all alike.

One by one, the Antiborreks sit at their abacuses, and figure out they can have more money for the year simply by paying a fine and then re-enrolling when one of them gets sick.
So the Michigan Insurance Company, the Blue Double-Cross, has had falling premium income, and suddenly rising expenses as the Antiborreks re-enroll. And employers figure out that the can end insurance, and pay out less than the difference in higher salaries. The Double-Crossing actuaries have no basis to predict this.

So MBDC orders a rate increase for the 100 Borrek families. Well, they figure-out this game, and drop out, and the spiral for insurance leads to de-capitalization. Or if there is a cap on premiums, the insurance company must leave the state. (And do not kid yourself, insurers have left a state rather than continue business in this fashion.)

Well, who will then manage the “insurance” business in the State of Michigan? Why, of course, our friend, the insurer-of last-resort, the Government.

I do not know if this scenario will play out, but the trip-wires are in place, set to snap at the next recession.[/quote]

Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??[/quote]

Perhaps the term “reduction to the absurd” is foreign to you.

I offered the extreme example for the sake of clarity. When we speak of the margins of profitability in insurance, whether it is 2% or 18%, they are threatened directly by the unpredictable risk pool. If healthy families stop paying in, the costs born by the remaining families must rise, or insurance will not be written. So if enough people opt-out–and the law is jiggered to allow and encourage this–then insurance companies will not be able to provide service to the remainder. The government–“state supported exchange pools”–will need to be expanded, and supported from the public trough.

Clear now?

205

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

So you choose going dramatic over addressing the obvious point that coverage limits are broken and not a simple matter of premium reduction?
[/quote]

Good call, especially sense you started the subject you are now labeling dramatic.

“So your dollar is more important than my health”

Forgive me, but did you sign up for a plan with those coverage limits? Were you given the information detailing them? How is that unfair? Wouldn’t it be unfair to change the contract after its signed?

So, if it is unfair for you to pay for your own treatment, how is it fair to make a company that explicitly said they wouldn’t on a contract you signed or to make individuals who don’t know you pay?

[/quote]

No one tried to change the terms of any coverage.

You still haven’t explained how 4 months of rehab would raise premiums, when 6 months of the same rehab plus an arthroscopic surgey would not. Coverage limits was a broken system, and I’m glad it’s gone.[/quote]

If limits where in your contract, you are wanting to change the terms.

Explain to me why you get to make that call with my money.[/quote]

Try again. The question is about broken coverage limits.

And for your information, when I was told I had reached my annual limit, I handled the rehab on my own. There were no letters or calls trying to change anything. You’re not going to get the answer you’re fishing for from me, so just go ahead and address the original issue.[/quote]

The whole basis of the discussion was what happened to you being unfair. How was it unfair? Was it unfair for the rehab guy to charge you? Was it unfair for the insurance to spot paying for it?

If it wasn’t unfair, you have no argument. Why do you get to tell me I can’t have limits on my policy?

206

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.[/quote]

A reduction to the absurd follows.

The state of Michigan has 200 families: 100 Borrek families, all alike, and 100 Antiborrek families, all alike.

One by one, the Antiborreks sit at their abacuses, and figure out they can have more money for the year simply by paying a fine and then re-enrolling when one of them gets sick.
So the Michigan Insurance Company, the Blue Double-Cross, has had falling premium income, and suddenly rising expenses as the Antiborreks re-enroll. And employers figure out that the can end insurance, and pay out less than the difference in higher salaries. The Double-Crossing actuaries have no basis to predict this.

So MBDC orders a rate increase for the 100 Borrek families. Well, they figure-out this game, and drop out, and the spiral for insurance leads to de-capitalization. Or if there is a cap on premiums, the insurance company must leave the state. (And do not kid yourself, insurers have left a state rather than continue business in this fashion.)

Well, who will then manage the “insurance” business in the State of Michigan? Why, of course, our friend, the insurer-of last-resort, the Government.

I do not know if this scenario will play out, but the trip-wires are in place, set to snap at the next recession.[/quote]

Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??[/quote]

Perhaps the term “reduction to the absurd” is foreign to you.

I offered the extreme example for the sake of clarity. When we speak of the margins of profitability in insurance, whether it is 2% or 18%, they are threatened directly by the unpredictable risk pool. If healthy families stop paying in, the costs born by the remaining families must rise, or insurance will not be written. So if enough people opt-out–and the law is jiggered to allow and encourage this–then insurance companies will not be able to provide service to the remainder. The government–“state supported exchange pools”–will need to be expanded, and supported from the public trough.

Clear now?[/quote]

This is what I am noticing here where I live. Healthy young people pay for sick elderly people (most of the time), and when you have the healthy people opt out, insurance companies increase their premiums to compensate. With this government bill, we will see more and more companies get out of the business altogether, making more and more people get on the government plan.

This is what all the pro government health care people don’t get, when the government is given so much power, they can be brutally evil with it, and in time we will see it get worse.

207

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I heard someone yelled “baby killer” at Rep. Stupak, one of the most hardcore anti-abortion Dems around. Obviously whoever yelled it respects life, but what about the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans who die each year because they don’t have healthcare?[/quote]

They do have health care…nobody makes them choose unhealthy life styles that cause them to develop cancers, get AIDS, and get fat…And when they do choose that you say I am immoral because I don’t want to pay for their misdeeds?

Go to hell.

208

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
what about the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans who die each year because they don’t have healthcare?[/quote]

First and foremost you have your facts wrong. No one dies because they don’t have health care. If you go to an emergency room they will treat you whether or not you have health insurance. This is just one of the big liberal lies told to push the bill along. It worked because gullible people like you believed it.

Also there are more pressing concerns than health care when it comes to peoples needs.

What about people who cannot afford to eat three meals a day? What about people who do not have a home to live in? What about people who do not have a reliable car to get them to work so that they can feed their family?

Is everything a fundamental right now? Is anything up to the individual? How long until those of us who actually make money will be responsible for a whole host of items like those above under Obama?

Obama has seriously damaged this country with this horrendous piece of legislation, but I fear there is more to come unless we can boot the democrats out in November.

209

to all the dipshits out there who support ObamaCare -

If it’s so GOOD, why does the govt have to FORCE it upon us?

Fuckin’ clowns.

210

[quote]saveski wrote:
to all the dipshits out there who support ObamaCare -

If it’s so GOOD, why does the govt have to FORCE it upon us?

Fuckin’ clowns.[/quote]

Or why don’t all the members of congress and the prez himself sign up for the plan?

211

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
to all the dipshits out there who support ObamaCare -

If it’s so GOOD, why does the govt have to FORCE it upon us?

Fuckin’ clowns.[/quote]

Or why don’t all the members of congress and the prez himself sign up for the plan?[/quote]

Because they know what you want, and how you should live your life better than you do.

212

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]borrek wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
No philosophical concerns whatsoever about socialism, huh? The ends justify the means with you?[/quote]

I do not agree with you that this law spells a government takeover of private business.[/quote]

A reduction to the absurd follows.

The state of Michigan has 200 families: 100 Borrek families, all alike, and 100 Antiborrek families, all alike.

One by one, the Antiborreks sit at their abacuses, and figure out they can have more money for the year simply by paying a fine and then re-enrolling when one of them gets sick.
So the Michigan Insurance Company, the Blue Double-Cross, has had falling premium income, and suddenly rising expenses as the Antiborreks re-enroll. And employers figure out that the can end insurance, and pay out less than the difference in higher salaries. The Double-Crossing actuaries have no basis to predict this.

So MBDC orders a rate increase for the 100 Borrek families. Well, they figure-out this game, and drop out, and the spiral for insurance leads to de-capitalization. Or if there is a cap on premiums, the insurance company must leave the state. (And do not kid yourself, insurers have left a state rather than continue business in this fashion.)

Well, who will then manage the “insurance” business in the State of Michigan? Why, of course, our friend, the insurer-of last-resort, the Government.

I do not know if this scenario will play out, but the trip-wires are in place, set to snap at the next recession.[/quote]

Again, here we are with totally imaginary magnitudes. This is more fairy tale than parable…

Do you really genuinely believe that 50% of Americans will decide to go without insurance??[/quote]

Perhaps the term “reduction to the absurd” is foreign to you.

I offered the extreme example for the sake of clarity. When we speak of the margins of profitability in insurance, whether it is 2% or 18%, they are threatened directly by the unpredictable risk pool. If healthy families stop paying in, the costs born by the remaining families must rise, or insurance will not be written. So if enough people opt-out–and the law is jiggered to allow and encourage this–then insurance companies will not be able to provide service to the remainder. The government–“state supported exchange pools”–will need to be expanded, and supported from the public trough.

Clear now?[/quote]

This is what I am noticing here where I live. Healthy young people pay for sick elderly people (most of the time), and when you have the healthy people opt out, insurance companies increase their premiums to compensate. With this government bill, we will see more and more companies get out of the business altogether, making more and more people get on the government plan.

This is what all the pro government health care people don’t get, when the government is given so much power, they can be brutally evil with it, and in time we will see it get worse.

[/quote]

By now, I thought someone would have pointed to a flaw in my thinking. I will provide it myself.

Why, if private insurance is put at a disadvantage as I have described it, are the insurance companies so in favor of Obamacare?

Before the mandate takes effect, there will be a huge expansion in Medicaid, which burdens state government with unfunded mandates, and which does not touch the insurance industry. But, as “insurance exchanges” start-up, they will provide a new revenue stream which will go to (presumably) competing insurance companies. Presuming a pay-out ratio of .80 to .90, the insurance companies will make a pile of money very quickly.

This in itself mitigates the risk of the shrinking, sicker, risk pool of private insurance which I have posited. But wait! There is more! As the insurance exchanges fail, or as their risk rises, the government will need to provide capital. The insurance companies will have ample protection against risk, cushioned by federal tax dollars.

Great scenario, eh? Of course, I could be dead wrong, and the insurance companies will disappear, or merge, and there will be a lot of wailing coming from very tall glass buildings. But If I am close to being right, the insurance industry has secured more revenue streams, private and public, and mitigated some of the inherent risk, at the expense of taxpayers.

213

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I heard someone yelled “baby killer” at Rep. Stupak, one of the most hardcore anti-abortion Dems around. Obviously whoever yelled it respects life, but what about the lives of the tens of thousands of Americans who die each year because they don’t have healthcare?[/quote]

What kind of question is this? What about every person that dies around the world? How much of my money would like to take? Maybe we should just keep spending until no one dies before 90?

What about the 10s of thousands of people that die becuase of gov’t regulation? How many medications and treatments that save lives are off limits for years? Our bloated gov’t takes more lives that it could ever hope to save. Let go ahead and give them more responsibility.

214

Hey Borrek, Why didn’t you buy a policy with higher limits? What a fucking crybaby. Hey this thing I bought acted JUST like it was supposed to but I didn’t plan well enough and now it’s everyone elses fault.

Policy limits are what enable insurance companies to rate exposures. That along with Historical Loss data are pretty much all they have to determine losses. Insurance companies HAVE to take in more money in premiums than they pay out in losses or else they go in the red and either fail or get bailed out. Both are bad. So you want UNLIMITED insurance limits for all. Then YES one of a few things will happen, ALL rates will go up very quickly because the potential for loss has just gone up, or companies will start buckling, a claim that would have been capped at 100,000 is now going to run up into the 5 million dollar territory and the person is going to die 6 months later than they would have and be in pain and horrible medical procedures for most of that time.

This is the biggest problem I have with bleeding hearts, they make thier decisions based on emotions and not on information and clear logical thinking. ALL of the arguments liberals make are about Poor Human A and Poor Human B who have had such a tragedy unfold at the hands of the evil insurance companies. Insurance is not a living breathing entity that can be good or evil. It is a system to spread risk, nothing more. Can it be improved? Sure, but the market should decide how to do that. Don’t you think that if it was possible for an insurance company to still make money, provide more coverage and have lower rates that it would make them so desirable that literally everyone would switch to that carrier? The lack of one company beating the snot out of the rest or even someone trying to beat the snot out of the rest is HARD EVIDENCE that the system is not broken at the insurance level.

The system is broken at the patient level, and at the court level. Patienst lie, cheat and steal thier way to benefits. For example, the 33% fraud rate in medicare/medicade. And Lawers suck up huge resources in medical insurance limits, that money doesn’t go to patient care, or to doctors, or to drugs, it goes to a lawer. Lawers don’t provide medical care, they provide legal services, Caps need to be put on how much lawers are allowed to make on medical cases. I would really prefer lawers be barred from making anything with relation to the size of the judgement. Make them charge an hourly rate, or a flat fee or someother mechanism.

V

215

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Hey Borrek, Why didn’t you buy a policy with higher limits? What a fucking crybaby. Hey this thing I bought acted JUST like it was supposed to but I didn’t plan well enough and now it’s everyone elses fault.

Policy limits are what enable insurance companies to rate exposures. That along with Historical Loss data are pretty much all they have to determine losses. Insurance companies HAVE to take in more money in premiums than they pay out in losses or else they go in the red and either fail or get bailed out. Both are bad. So you want UNLIMITED insurance limits for all. Then YES one of a few things will happen, ALL rates will go up very quickly because the potential for loss has just gone up, or companies will start buckling, a claim that would have been capped at 100,000 is now going to run up into the 5 million dollar territory and the person is going to die 6 months later than they would have and be in pain and horrible medical procedures for most of that time.

This is the biggest problem I have with bleeding hearts, they make thier decisions based on emotions and not on information and clear logical thinking. ALL of the arguments liberals make are about Poor Human A and Poor Human B who have had such a tragedy unfold at the hands of the evil insurance companies. Insurance is not a living breathing entity that can be good or evil. It is a system to spread risk, nothing more. Can it be improved? Sure, but the market should decide how to do that. Don’t you think that if it was possible for an insurance company to still make money, provide more coverage and have lower rates that it would make them so desirable that literally everyone would switch to that carrier? The lack of one company beating the snot out of the rest or even someone trying to beat the snot out of the rest is HARD EVIDENCE that the system is not broken at the insurance level.

The system is broken at the patient level, and at the court level. Patienst lie, cheat and steal thier way to benefits. For example, the 33% fraud rate in medicare/medicade. And Lawers suck up huge resources in medical insurance limits, that money doesn’t go to patient care, or to doctors, or to drugs, it goes to a lawer. Lawers don’t provide medical care, they provide legal services, Caps need to be put on how much lawers are allowed to make on medical cases. I would really prefer lawers be barred from making anything with relation to the size of the judgement. Make them charge an hourly rate, or a flat fee or someother mechanism.

V [/quote]

Instead of a cap on Lawyers lets change the priority of the money flow. Instead of Lawyer, Care, then patient lets flip it. Patient, Care, then Lawyer. The Lawyers take 54% of the settlement right off the top first. The lawyer get the benefit of the lawsuit and not the patient.

216

Another interesting note on the health care bill, Obama, his family and hundreds of other key people and their families are exempt from obeying the new health care laws.

217

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Another interesting note on the health care bill, Obama, his family and hundreds of other key people and their families are exempt from obeying the new health care laws. [/quote]

The chosen one couldn’t possibly lower himself to be a part of a service that his rate payers use. He must remain above us all.

On a side note, and not trying to hijack, the term “rate payer” is the term coined by the Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power to describe the tax payers who use it. Yes, this public utility which is controlled by the state government, calls people “rate payers” instead of “citizens, taxpayers, Angelenos, or just people.”

Watch and see, how we will soon be known as rate payers, and not “The American People, People of America,” or whatever verbal vommit Obama uses.

218

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Hey Borrek, Why didn’t you buy a policy with higher limits? What a fucking crybaby. Hey this thing I bought acted JUST like it was supposed to but I didn’t plan well enough and now it’s everyone elses fault.

Policy limits are what enable insurance companies to rate exposures. That along with Historical Loss data are pretty much all they have to determine losses. Insurance companies HAVE to take in more money in premiums than they pay out in losses or else they go in the red and either fail or get bailed out. Both are bad. So you want UNLIMITED insurance limits for all. Then YES one of a few things will happen, ALL rates will go up very quickly because the potential for loss has just gone up, or companies will start buckling, a claim that would have been capped at 100,000 is now going to run up into the 5 million dollar territory and the person is going to die 6 months later than they would have and be in pain and horrible medical procedures for most of that time.

This is the biggest problem I have with bleeding hearts, they make thier decisions based on emotions and not on information and clear logical thinking. ALL of the arguments liberals make are about Poor Human A and Poor Human B who have had such a tragedy unfold at the hands of the evil insurance companies. Insurance is not a living breathing entity that can be good or evil. It is a system to spread risk, nothing more. Can it be improved? Sure, but the market should decide how to do that. Don’t you think that if it was possible for an insurance company to still make money, provide more coverage and have lower rates that it would make them so desirable that literally everyone would switch to that carrier? The lack of one company beating the snot out of the rest or even someone trying to beat the snot out of the rest is HARD EVIDENCE that the system is not broken at the insurance level.

The system is broken at the patient level, and at the court level. Patienst lie, cheat and steal thier way to benefits. For example, the 33% fraud rate in medicare/medicade. And Lawers suck up huge resources in medical insurance limits, that money doesn’t go to patient care, or to doctors, or to drugs, it goes to a lawer. Lawers don’t provide medical care, they provide legal services, Caps need to be put on how much lawers are allowed to make on medical cases. I would really prefer lawers be barred from making anything with relation to the size of the judgement. Make them charge an hourly rate, or a flat fee or someother mechanism.

V [/quote]

I’m glad someone finally said this. I couldn’t agree more. We live in a time where, if you choose, you can protect yourself against many diseases/conditions that would have killed you in matter of weeks even 20 or 30 years ago. The biggest problem is peoples priorities. For some it is more important they have their cable t.v. with HBO or to drive a leased Lexus then to pay a couple hundred dollars a month in insurance. It’s a shame when someone gets a disease such as cancer, but if they choose not to pay for health insurance I do not feel bad when they can’t afford treatment.

You can choose to pay for cable t.v. or health care, but either way you have to live with the consequences. The same goes for pre-existing conditions. If you pay for insurance when you don’t need it you don’t have to worry about a pre-existing condition excluding you from coverage (with some exceptions).

It comes down to personal responsibility. If you plan for and set aside for possible future health issues you wont have any problems, but if you’d rather spend $100 bucks every Friday at the local bar and forgo insuring yourself you will have to live with the consequences. I don’t know the numbers, but I would imagine it is a very small % of Americans that truly need us to provide them health coverage.

my 2 cents for what it’s worth

Chris

219

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
to all the dipshits out there who support ObamaCare -

If it’s so GOOD, why does the govt have to FORCE it upon us?

Fuckin’ clowns.[/quote]

Or why don’t all the members of congress and the prez himself sign up for the plan?[/quote]

Because they know it sucks dick and the want nothing to do with it, otherwise they’d be the first in line to get it if it was awesome.

220

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Hey Borrek, Why didn’t you buy a policy with higher limits? What a fucking crybaby. Hey this thing I bought acted JUST like it was supposed to but I didn’t plan well enough and now it’s everyone elses fault.

Policy limits are what enable insurance companies to rate exposures. That along with Historical Loss data are pretty much all they have to determine losses. Insurance companies HAVE to take in more money in premiums than they pay out in losses or else they go in the red and either fail or get bailed out. Both are bad. So you want UNLIMITED insurance limits for all. Then YES one of a few things will happen, ALL rates will go up very quickly because the potential for loss has just gone up, or companies will start buckling, a claim that would have been capped at 100,000 is now going to run up into the 5 million dollar territory and the person is going to die 6 months later than they would have and be in pain and horrible medical procedures for most of that time.

This is the biggest problem I have with bleeding hearts, they make thier decisions based on emotions and not on information and clear logical thinking. ALL of the arguments liberals make are about Poor Human A and Poor Human B who have had such a tragedy unfold at the hands of the evil insurance companies. Insurance is not a living breathing entity that can be good or evil. It is a system to spread risk, nothing more. Can it be improved? Sure, but the market should decide how to do that. Don’t you think that if it was possible for an insurance company to still make money, provide more coverage and have lower rates that it would make them so desirable that literally everyone would switch to that carrier? The lack of one company beating the snot out of the rest or even someone trying to beat the snot out of the rest is HARD EVIDENCE that the system is not broken at the insurance level.

The system is broken at the patient level, and at the court level. Patienst lie, cheat and steal thier way to benefits. For example, the 33% fraud rate in medicare/medicade. And Lawers suck up huge resources in medical insurance limits, that money doesn’t go to patient care, or to doctors, or to drugs, it goes to a lawer. Lawers don’t provide medical care, they provide legal services, Caps need to be put on how much lawers are allowed to make on medical cases. I would really prefer lawers be barred from making anything with relation to the size of the judgement. Make them charge an hourly rate, or a flat fee or someother mechanism.

V [/quote]

Instead of a cap on Lawyers lets change the priority of the money flow. Instead of Lawyer, Care, then patient lets flip it. Patient, Care, then Lawyer. The Lawyers take 54% of the settlement right off the top first. The lawyer get the benefit of the lawsuit and not the patient.[/quote]
How about loser pays? How about allowing hospitals to require arbitration instead of trial by jury, where the jury always seems to assume the doctor/hospital/insurance can afford to fork out lottery winnings to some poor soul.

Not my expertise, but it seems there could be ways of making this more efficient with out too many arbitrary regulations or limits.