What's Wrong In Minnesota?

I haven't yet had much to say about the election stealing nearly complete in Minnesota. Nothing is more disastrous, nor more dangerous for our Republic than corrupting the integrity of our elections as partisan politics is now doing more and more.

It's just as sad as it is anger producing. But with partisan hacks controlling elections in more and more of America, I'm not sure how the trend can change. Much of the so-called electorate doesn't even seem to care.

But that isn't the only problem in Minnesota. This whole process doesn't say much for Norm Coleman either. If a sitting Senator doesn't have enough support to win an election, Third Party candidate, or not, clearly not enough Minnesotans were impressed with Coleman to care about his candidacy all that much.

Frankly, I don't know much about him. And I certainly didn't want him, as a Republican, to lose. But then, what's a Republican anymore? Until that party defines some type of identity for itself again, who's to say?

I'm not optimistic as regards any potential court challenges, but we'll see.

As for Minnesota - first Ventura, now Franken? They should consider leaving the Republic and joining up with Canada to be part of some Northern Hemispheric joke. Though frankly, that's a little too harsh as regards Canada.

Many of our politicians have been shams for years. Now an increasing number of our elections and our "electorate" are, too. If the trend continues the outcome is predictable and does not bode well for a future America anything like the great nation that it's been.

More and more I fear it will take some significant cultural upheaval or major catastrophic event to turn things around.

Comments

[Anon]

jharp displays the same inability to grasp the fundamentals of any issue, he cannot think beyond the soundbyte.

Europe relies on a single payer system, that means that in effect, business and individual taxes pay for 'free' health care for all, but jharp doesn't seem to understand that government money still comes from somewhere, e.g. individuals and businesses..that's why he thinks a single payer system, which nobody but him believes is on the table in the U.S., is going to magically erase all the money Americans already pay for health care. It won't. Because 'free stuff' from the government is only free if you don't pay any taxes to begin with or turn any profit or in any way contribute to society from a monetary basis.

Jharp also eroneously believes what almost no experts believe, which is that expanding health care to millions who don't have it is going to reduce the short term and long term cost of health care, which is a mathmatical impossibility as any expert will tell you: Obama's cost savings ideas cannot and will not save enough money to pay for the new people he's adding to the roles. That means the taxpayers will foot the bill: businesses and individuals will pay more, not less, for the same level of care.

[jharp]

templar,

There is plenty of insulting here from both sides.

Why don't you address my post as I do to everyone else and quit whining to Dan to ban me.

I raise important issues and if you disagree go at it. Your ignoring my points only enforces my opinion that you've got nothing.

[jharp]

"free' health care for all"

Where di you go to scholl, son. Nothing is free.

"he thinks a single payer system, which nobody but him believes is on the table in the U.S."

I am aware single payer is not on the table. Yet Obama's plan takes us in the first step in that direction.

"is going to magically erase all the money Americans already pay for health care"

Don't believe in magic either.

"Jharp also eroneously believes what almost no experts believe, which is that expanding health care to millions who don't have it is going to reduce the short term and long term cost of health care"

Wrong. The other 31 industrialized countries deliver the same level of care for less than half the cost. And cover everyone.

"for the new people he's adding to the roles. That means the taxpayers will foot the bill"

Everyone is on the roles and the taxpayers are paying for the bill. That's now, today. The problem is it is a terribly inefficient system.

And we are the only country in the world who uses it. And we pay 2 to 3 times more.

Tell me Anon. How does this affect American's ability to compete in world markets when we pay $3,000 to 4,000 more than anyone else to provide health benefits to our workers?

[templar knight]

"I raise important issues."

Yeah, right, and when anyone disagrees with you, they're a jackass, birdbrain, etc. I'm just tired of your bullshit, myself. I could care less about what you say, but others who used to be here are gone. Probably because of you, and frankly, you aren't a very good trade for them. I loved Dan's blog before you made an appearance. Now, not so much. And Dan had more liberals on this blog as well. Everyone's leaving. Oh, well, the last one may turn the lights off on jharp. Sheesh!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I live in Minnesota. --"

The GOP clearly needs to give up on the state. It's a lost cause.

[RoddyB]

Minnesota is a joke. Residents of that state should be ashamed of themselves.

[IslamoLlama]

So here's the real joke. Norm Coleman will have his day(s) in court. The votes will be reviewed exhaustively by every lawyer either party can afford. Challenges will be fielded, all the ballots will be open to review (thousands were available to be viewed online), multiple levels of the judiciary will be involved. And when all is said and done, if Norm Coleman isn't declared the winner I guaran-fucking-tee the GOoPer dead-enders will still be screaming "they stole the vote! they stole the vote!" as though it is inconceivable that 50.001% of registered Minnesotans might vote for a Democrat Senator (Amy Klobuchar who?)

Meanwhile, I guaran-fucking-tee those exact same GOoPer dead-enders will insist to their dying breaths that the 2000 Florida election was the model of fair and open election practices and that Al Gore is a big WATB for even asking for a recount much less taking it to the SCOTUS.

Why, you ask, the disparity? After all, Norm Coleman is receiving far more open and extensively reviewed balloting than Al Gore? Coleman's state supreme court was more than happy to get absentee ballots counted. Coleman's opponent won't even be seated with the rest of his Senate colleagues while Coleman has the opportunity to appeal the decision.

It's almost as though the only basis on which the local yokles are protesting or upholding the fairness of an election rests on whether an (R) or a (D) won.

How about Jeff Merkley? Did he steal the election? Did Kay Hagan rig the vote in N Carolina? What about Tom and Mark Udall? Or Alaska's Mark Begich? Were these Senators involved in any electioneering we should know about?

Why all the fuss with Al Franken. Surely, if this is a systemic nationwide issue - a plot by Democrats from east to west to rig the vote - we should see some evidence in the other 49 states of unfair election practices. Please, pile on the evidence. Perhaps even the Presidency itself was stolen. Are we absolutely sure Barack Obama won all 365 electoral votes he claims? Or was their dirty work afoot? Quick, super slouthes! You better get on this mystery right away!

[SacTownMan]

The "Banned One" says,

"The other 31 industrialized countries deliver the same level of care for less than half the cost. And cover everyone."

First it's the "whole world delivers the same level of care", then when called on the stupidity of this claim Harpo changes to "the 31 industrialized nations."

Lets take your earlier example of Switzerland,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

7.6 million people, over 41km2 or a density of (479/ sq mi). Total GDP of $301 Billion.

Compare this to America,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states

301 million people, over 9.8 million km2 or a density of (80/sq mi) Total GDP of $14.3 trillion

One is a small socialist country with 7.6 million people vs one that is the third largest land area and population in the world. Christ man we have more that 2 times their population in illegal aliens alone adding to the total overall cost of our healthcare system!

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/immigration_facts_figures_and_addendum.html

"Immigrants who arrived in the US after 1989 and their US-born children account for 60% or 5.5 million of the increase in the size of the uninsured medical health population."

Picture Switzerland paying the tab for 15 million non-citizens! That might have an impact on both quality and "per capita" alone were it not for the major cultural differences involved.

The American population is spread out much more than many of those "industrialized nations" requiring more resources. Many of the homeless in our streets are mentally ill and in poor health. What about the illegal aliens and the health issues that they bring with them?

To compare America to these countries is like comparing apples to oranges or your intellect to that of a rational thinking person.

[jharp]

Posted by: SacTownMan | Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 07:23 PM

You went to a lot of trouble to make a post that is meaningless.

If, as you say, illegals are the problem I've got an idea. Let's reform our system so that they actually pay for their health care! Amazing! Just like the rest of the industrialized world does!

"Picture Switzerland paying the tab for 15 million non-citizens!"

And do the math you imbecile. That is 4% of our population. A similar number for Switzerland would be 300 thousand.

"The American population is spread out much more than many of those "industrialized nations" requiring more resources."

And at the risk of offending templar. You are a moron to post this.

And you wonder why American's have the rejected asinine claims you wingnuts make.

[jharp]

SacToenMan,

Read this and learn.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/

And try to answer this.

How does this affect American's ability to compete in world markets when we pay $3,000 to 4,000 more than anyone else to provide health benefits to our workers?

And you claim to be homeowner? I honestly am astounded at the ignorance of Americans regarding our health care system.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have poisoned your brain.

[SacTownMan]

Harpo you are simply too dumb to grasp anything that doesn't support your own warped view of the world.

As such it is a waste of time interacting with you on any level.

You were the one banned by Pattericos for being an imbecile and a moron so please feel free to spare us any more of your on-going stupidity.

To hell with poking you with a stick as I for one will no longer respond to ANY of your rants here. You've worn out your welcome as far as I'm concerned.

You have single handedly alienated most of the other regulars here and while Dan can choose to let you stick around you can add me to the long list of Patterico's "had enough" posters.

[jharp]

Just as I figured. You've got nothing.

You get testy when I note the stupidity of your posts.

So you take you ball and go home.

[135east]

"Bernie Madoff just screwed investors out of $50 BILLION too."

Yes, he did. And which political party did he apparently believe would best look after him and his 'enterprise'?

"Madoff contributed $164,650 to various campaigns and political-action committees - including $101,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - over the past decade, records show.

That largesse helped Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), who chaired the DSCC, in his successful quest to win Democratic control of the US Senate.

Madoff also kicked in $6,300 to Schumer's congressional campaign committees."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162008/news/regionalnews/dems_moneyman_144448.htm

[Anon]

WHY do you keep comparing European costs, which has single payer, with the U.S. system???????????????????

Since we do NOT HAVE A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM LIKE THEY DO IN EUROPE it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to provide health care at the same cost. What about this very, very basic idea do you fail to understand? Health care is cheaper in Europe than it is here. Health care in Europe is delivered in a different way than it is here. Therefore, expecting any changes in our health care system that DO NOT PUT IT ON PAR ORGANIZATIONALLY WITH EUROPEAN SINGLE PAYER SYSTEMS is totally flawed and ridiculous.

The U.S. cannot deliver health care as cheaply as 'the other 31 countries' unless WE HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF DELIVERY SYSTEM. But since you acknowledge that a single payer system is not on the horizon then you have to acknowledge that comparing costs in system X to system Y and then claiming that system Y should be able to deliver costs the same as system x is SILLY and WRONG.

This is why you aggravate people because you say the same things over and over again and everyone on this board already knows that the European system and the U.S. system are very different so UNLESS WE MOVE TO THE EUROPEAN MODEL comparisons are meaningless. Since Obama's plan does not convert us to the European model then it makes no sense to claiim that Obama's plan can get health care delivered as cheaply as 'the other 31' countries.

There are pros and cons to the European system, the pros are that everyone has base line access to health care, costs are fairly contained and predictable, delivery of health care does not vary widely, the cons are that expensive tests take much longer to get in Europe than in the U.S. if you have insurance and the most cutting edge technologies and drugs are not as easy to get if all you have is the government provided health care and no ancillary private insurance if you are European.

Obama's plan is not going to make health care costs in the U.S. the same as costs in Europe. It is quite probable that given the size of the country both population wise and geographically taht we could NEVER deliver health care as cheaply or efficiently as European countries.

[jharp]

Posted by: Anon | Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Finally an intelligent post on health care. Thank you.

Your points are exactly why I favor a single payer. And FYI the single payer goes far beyond Europe.

And the sole reason no politician is bold enough, or too smart, to campaign on a single payer system is because of right wing jackasses that continue to refer to it as socialized medicine and spread other complete falsehoods.

If you study and think about Obama's plan it is the best start to eventually adopt a single payer system. You and I know damn well there is no way politically he could get it done without taking small steps.

And so I guess you favor a single payer system. Right? With supplemental private coverage for those who opt for it. Like the rest of the civilized world.

"It is quite probable that given the size of the country both population wise and geographically taht we could NEVER deliver health care as cheaply or efficiently as European countries."

On this I 100 percent disagree. We are the greatest country in the world. We can do it. And take a look at Australia.

[SacTownMan]

"It is quite probable that given the size of the country both population wise and geographically taht we could NEVER deliver health care as cheaply or efficiently as European countries."

Well said Anon. I would add that there are still major differences in our culture and the make-up of our population that also have a major impact on the ability to efficiently and effectively deliver healthcare in our country.

[jharp]

So just what are you two referring to, the population of the U.S. or the density of our population?

A bigger population would in effect increase cost effectiveness and the density argument hold no weight either. Take a gander at Australia.

"there are still major differences in our culture"

And I have no idea what the hell you mean by this.

[Lala]

JHarp is an annoying pest. I wish everyone would ignore him like I do. He is extremely rude and doesn't deserve to be included in any discussions on this board.

[jharp]

"JHarp is an annoying pest. I wish everyone would ignore him like I do."

And you are a whiner. Oh please ignore jharp as he actually presents facts that are contrary to the wingnuts.

Why don't you try a few well thought out posts that deal with facts. And quite begging for other posters to ignore me.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"$7,421 per person in 2007 in the U.S" Do the math. Our expenses are 134% higher than the median."

Of course they are.

You see, in the United States, people are allowed to spend money on things like braces, fluoride treatments, hip replacements, and other things that nationalized health insurance programs deem "unnnecessary", all without undue waits. We spend more on health care per capita because our health care costs include things like Paris Hilton's breast implants, Caroline Kennedy's facelifts, and so forth -- all of which would be denied or severely curtailed in a nationalized healthcare system.

Second off, in the United States, our system is required to absorb the costs of both defending against and trying to prevent medical malpractice lawsuits. What do other countries do?

http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=111474&searchString=Malpractice:%2520Do%2520other%2520countries%2520hold%2520the%2520key%3F

First, they don't allow the jury-shopping that Democrat Party trial lawyers routinely try to seek out to find better judgments.

"The United States is one of the few countries where a jury routinely decides whether a doctor committed malpractice. The norm elsewhere is for a judge to try malpractice claims and other civil litigation, says David Bernstein, a professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, VA. That's true in Germany, the UK, and most Commonwealth nations. In Canada, every province except Quebec gives warring parties the jury option. However juries heard only 4 percent of cases going to trial in 2002, according to the Canadian Medical Protective Association, which provides malpractice coverage for 95 percent of the nation's physicians."

And those massive payouts that support Democrat Party trial lawyers?

"Germany prohibits attorneys from taking civil cases on contingency. True, German lawyers can charge more for cases involving larger sums of money, but only according to a government fee schedule. And the fee schedule isn't generous by American standards. A lawyer handling a case valued at $600,000 and actually tried before a judge would normally collect only about $7,500.

The UK bans percentage-based contingency fees, but in the 1990s, it introduced what's called a conditional fee. As in the United States, the plaintiff pays his lawyer only if he wins. However, the lawyer can collect no more than double what he would normally charge—not a formula for a million-dollar payday."

And the cost of defending against the frivolous lawsuits filed by people like jharp who are trying to get rich quick?

"One gripe about American justice is that even if you triumph over a plaintiff, you (or your insurer) still have to shell out big bucks to defense attorneys. In Germany, the UK, and other Commonwealth countries, the loser pays the winner's legal bill."

So let's call jharp's bluff and implement some rules from these other systems.

-- Judges try malpractice lawsuits, not juries.

-- Attorneys' fees are limited to no more than twice what they would ordinarily charge and have nothing to do with the size of the judgment

-- Losers pay both their legal fees and the cost of defending against their lawsuit

-- Maximum awards for malpractice are capped

After all, jharp says the single-payer systems are superior in every way. Don't he and his party of trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuit-filers want to live under the same rules as these single-payer systems do?

And this statement of jharp's was particularly amusing.

"Traveling to fucking India for joint replacement."

We understand that racists like jharp hate people who are industrious and able to produce better value than overpaid American workers. I bet he protests in front of foreign-car dealerships about how the "fucking gooks" or whatever charming phrases he can produce are so evil.

[Philip McDaniel]

“And you are a whiner. Oh please ignore jharp as he actually presents facts that are contrary to the wingnuts.
Why don't you try a few well thought out posts that deal with facts. And quite begging for other posters to ignore me.”

I see our resident ranter, Narcissus – aka jharp, is at it again.

The fact is, jharp, there are a lot of well thought out posts on this blog…the majority of them actually. The ones that are not usually come from you -- even though you try to weasel out of them when you are caught up. But stick around and continue to rant. I find it highly amusing to poke a stick at the caged moronic monkey and watch him rant. Pick up your mirror and have another banana.

I sense that most people on this blog are intelligent and well educated by the way. I also sense that you are not. That’s alright…you are taking fecklessness to a level seldom seen outside of Hollywood, or the inner chambers of the Democrat party for that matter and it is fascinating to watch.

[Lala]

You are wasting your time trying to educate JHarp.

[Anon]

feckless, now there is a good word:)

Jharp just doesn't live in the real world, I doubt very much the people of this country--let alone the entrenched special interests of HMOs, standard insurance companies, hospitals, doctors and lawyers--would ever stand for a single payer system that basically takes all choice out of the equation and would as someone else suggested have to also change the way malpractice is handled. Jharp sees on paper that single paper systems are cheaper than what we have in the U.S. and that is where his analysis ends. He doesn't factor in the massive economic hit that the health care sector, which is 25% I think of the economy would take in a single payer system that is no longer going to just shell out money for exorbitantly overpriced services, or if it did, then it wouldn't translate into any savings or the fact that the 75% of Americans who do have health care aren't going to want to wait a month for an x ray and two months for an MRI or have to go see the doctor the government tells them to go see instead of whomever they want to see. There are also huge differences in the infrastructure in the U.S. that would drive up costs of health care anyway because the country is huge and so people often have to travel distances longer than many European countries to get specialized care..all of this kind of stuff drives up the cost. We also have more poor people and more people with serious drug problems than most European countries,which also drives up the cost of health care. But, all of these below the soundbyte facts are lost on our friend jharp.

The U.S. health care system is too expensive and inefficient, there is no doubt about that, but I don't think single payer is the answer and I don't think the country/government/population has the will to do even the smallest things to make the current system more efficient.

[templar knight]

"It is fascinating to watch."

I'm tired of watching the monkey known as jharp throwing poo myself. I've done my best to ignore the clown, and I have to a great extent, but he has apparently run off some of the best people who posted here. And these folks were one of the reasons I really liked this blog. I don't want to disparage anyone who posts occasionally, but I really liked several regular people who used to post here before the arrival of said monkey. Several have said they were sick of this guy, including me. And frankly, I find myself coming to this blog less and less as the monkey has become the predominant poster here. Anyway, just my two cents. Regards to all but the one I won't mention.

[Philip McDaniel]

I hear you, Templar, and indeed sympathize – especially as I always look forward you what you have to say. It’s as if one drops by his favorite bar or coffee shop and discovers that the pet monkey has got loose again and is making a mess of the place. It makes you want to leave immediately.

In a real brick and mortar I suppose the owner would confine the creature to a side room or back room. Then someone could go in and play with it if they had the desire. Would that Dan could do the same with his blog.

[Philip McDaniel]

Better said: 'especially as I always look forward to what you have to say.'

[Philip McDaniel]

I think you are right, Anon. Also, it occurs to me that the overall costs of health care in the US could be lowered if the cost of malpractice insurance and the insurances that drug manufacturers and pharmacies are forced to carry could be brought under control. In other words, I think the lawyers are part of the problem and the government would best serve us by getting them under some kind of regulation. I am very skeptical of any comparisons between our health care system – however flawed it is – and those of the European states. If theirs were so great Americans would be going overseas for their medical care but it seems that the reverse is true.

[jharp]

"Americans would be going overseas for their medical care"

Americans are going overseas for medical procedures.

And malpractice costs are less than 1% of health care costs.

Pretty ironic that the other posters want an "activist" judge deciding the outcome of a case and a give up the right to have a jury of 12 of their peers decide.

That is political schizophrenia.

[jharp]

"special interests of HMOs, standard insurance companies, hospitals, doctors and lawyers--would ever stand for a single payer system"

Of course they will fight it. They are profiting immensely under the current system. Duh.

"that basically takes all choice out of the equation"

Wrong again. 1st insurers now are making the choices now. And theri duty is to their shareholders to max profits.

"change the way malpractice is handled"

Malpractice is less than 1% of the cost.

"Jharp sees on paper that single paper systems are cheaper than what we have in the U.S. and that is where his analysis ends."

Yes, single payer systems are more efficient and thus less costly.

"He doesn't factor in the massive economic hit that the health care sector, which is 25% I think of the economy would take in a single payer system that is no longer going to just shell out money for exorbitantly overpriced services,"

So let me get this straight. We need to preserve the most costly health care system in the world to keep an inefficient health care system from shedding unnecessary and duplicated jobs. Tell that to your friends fighting the auot bailout,

"or if it did, then it wouldn't translate into any savings"

Yes, it would. That is the whole idea.

"have to go see the doctor the government tells them to see"

Utter nonsense. Single payer systems allow you to see the doctor of your choice.

"There are also huge differences in the infrastructure in the U.S. that would drive up costs of health care anyway because the country is huge and so people often have to travel distances longer than many European countries to get specialized care..all of this kind of stuff drives up the cost."

More utter nonsense. See Australia. Canada.

"We also have more poor people and more people with serious drug problems than most European countries,which also drives up the cost of health care."

More utter nonsense. We're the richest country in the world.

Please turn off Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News. You are hurting our country.

And for the third time. Tell me Anon. How does this affect American's ability to compete in world markets when we pay $3,000 to 4,000 more than anyone else to provide health benefits to our workers?

[jharp]

For all dittoheads and others suffering the illusions that medical malpractice costs are a significant percentage of the most expensive health care system in the world.

Where do guys come up with such nonsense. Limbo? Hannity? Or just pull it out of your rear end?

http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/AIRhealthcosts.pdf

[Fred Beloit]

Say Temp, Harpo is a very smart guy (gal?). You must know that ending every comment with an insult is the way to change hearts and minds. Harpo should be running troop/civilian relations for the Army in Afghanistan.

"We want to offer you free medical care after we shoot you, you blockheads."

[jharp]

Say Temp, Harpo is a very smart guy (gal?).

I'm no smarter than most. Just a Bachelor of Science in Accounting,

I do, however read and think. And that puts me ahead of 80% of Americans.

"You must know that ending every comment with an insult is the way to change hearts and minds."

I just deal in facts. Not wingnut propaganda. Facts are what changes minds. If I need to point out the idiocy of a comment I'm going to do it. I'm sure you've noticed.

[North Dallas Thirty]

I love how the leftist jharp posts "statistics" created by a group that is funded primarily by trial lawyers and exists to oppose any sort of reform of the tort system or elimination of abusive and frivolous lawsuits.

http://www.aei.org/research/liability/publications/pubID.24273,projectID.23/pub_detail.asp

And notice how jharp whines and cries about how single-payer systems are "superior", but opposes all of the things, such as limits on awards, severe limitation of jury trials, denial of care, refusal to pay for "unnecessary" procedures, caps on lawyers' fees, and requiring frivolous lawsuit filers like jharp to pay the legal fees of the defendants that these single-payer systems practice for the express purpose of controlling costs.

Now for some more facts:

"Defensive medicine, broadly defined, is the practice of ordering tests, treatments, and referrals to specialists not because they are necessary or effective but because not doing so could expose the practitioner to a heightened risk of being sued. Defensive medicine is a "uniquely American phenomenon," says William R. Brody, M.D., president of Johns Hopkins University. "Many doctors-perhaps even most doctors-are doing it: they're ordering tests and procedures and even prescribing drugs far beyond what is reasonable or warranted . . . More and more, doctors are looking over their shoulders, afraid of lawsuits, in an atmosphere that can only be described as legal fear" (Brody 2003).

Defensive medicine is poisoning the doctor-patient relationship as well as wasting medical resources. Dr. Brody describes a Florida surgeon who, after losing a lawsuit for allegedly failing to fully discuss the risks of a procedure, installed cameras throughout his clinic and now videotapes all interactions with patients. So many other doctors have expressed interest in the system that the surgeon has formed a company to market it. If this is the wave of the future, Dr. Brody warns, the trust that is crucial to a good doctor-patient relationship will inevitably erode (Brody 2003).

Because the costs of defensive medicine are inherently difficult to quantify, estimates range widely. One study estimates that reducing the need for defensive medicine-for example by setting reasonable limits on noneconomic malpractice damages-could reduce the nation's healthcare costs by 5 to 9 percent annually. Given that we are currently spending roughly $1.4 trillion on healthcare each year, reforms could save $70 billion to $126 billion (U.S. DHHS 2003). That would be more than enough to cover all 41 million uninsured Americans.

Another way to look at this is from a taxpayer's perspective. The federal government funds Medicare and Medicaid along with many other healthcare programs and services. The government spends an estimated $33 billion to $56 billion per year for liability coverage and defensive medicine (U.S. DHHS 2003). This is wasted tax revenue. Reasonable litigation reforms could substantially reduce such outlays, freeing funds to increase coverage and improve care.

Still another way to look at the problem is from the standpoint of someone paying a health plan premium. Last year the American Association of Health Plans (AAHP) asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to calculate the effects of various cost drivers on premiums, which were estimated to have increased 13.7 percent from 2001 to 2002. The study found that litigation and risk management-including defensive medicine-accounted for 7 percent of the total increase. With healthcare spending by private insurers estimated at $537 billion in 2002 and expected to reach $767 billion by 2007, malpractice reform could save upwards of $16 billion in premiums over five years (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2002).

Defensive medicine unquestionably disrupts and distorts the practice of medicine. A recent survey of physicians found that a third had decided not to go into high-risk specialties because of their fear of heightened exposure to litigation; the great majority reported practicing defensive medicine. For example, 79 percent said they had ordered more tests than necessary; 74 percent reported making more referrals to specialists than necessary; 51 percent said that even with a diagnosis in hand, they might recommend unwarranted biopsies or other invasive diagnostic procedures as a precaution; and 41 percent said they had prescribed more antibiotics and other medications than their professional judgment called for (U.S. DHHS 2003)."

[North Dallas Thirty]

Link for above:

http://commongood.org/healthcare-newscommentary-watch.html%3Cbr%20/healthcare-newscommentary-watchhtmlbrhealthcare-newscommentary-inthenews-46.html

Meanwhile, jharp, why don't you want to admit that single-payer systems deny care, refuse to pay for certain healthcare procedures that Americans can easily acquire, limit lawsuit damages, stop trial lawyers from collecting massive sums, and deny the right to a jury trial in most cases?

[North Dallas Thirty]

And here's another great example of jharp's "logic":

"And for the third time. Tell me Anon. How does this affect American's ability to compete in world markets when we pay $3,000 to 4,000 more than anyone else to provide health benefits to our workers?"

Which of course, followed this:

"More utter nonsense. We're the richest country in the world."

If we were crippled by our healthcare costs and couldn't compete, we wouldn't be the richest country in the world, we'd be one of the poorest.

We spend more money, and we make more money. We are the most productive country in the world despite having such an "awful" system.

http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--en/WCMS_083976/index.htm

Now again, let's talk about why jharp opposes the features of a single-payer system, such as denial of care, refusal to pay for medical procedures, elimination of jury trials for malpractice lawsuits, caps on awarded damages, caps on lawyers' fees, and the "loser pays" requirement that would force him to pay the costs of defense that frivolous lawsuit filers like himself impose on innocent defendants, that are used to hold down costs in those systems.

[North Dallas Thirty]

And here's another great example of jharp's "logic":

"And for the third time. Tell me Anon. How does this affect American's ability to compete in world markets when we pay $3,000 to 4,000 more than anyone else to provide health benefits to our workers?"

Which of course, followed this:

"More utter nonsense. We're the richest country in the world."

If we were crippled by our healthcare costs and couldn't compete, we wouldn't be the richest country in the world, we'd be one of the poorest.

We spend more money, and we make more money. We are the most productive country in the world despite having such an "awful" system.

http://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/Media_and_public_information/Press_releases/lang--en/WCMS_083976/index.htm

Now again, let's talk about why jharp opposes the features of a single-payer system, such as denial of care, refusal to pay for medical procedures, elimination of jury trials for malpractice lawsuits, caps on awarded damages, caps on lawyers' fees, and the "loser pays" requirement that would force him to pay the costs of defense that frivolous lawsuit filers like himself impose on innocent defendants, that are used to hold down costs in those systems.

[jharp]

"Now again, let's talk about why jharp opposes the features of a single-payer system"

I favor the features of a single payer. I guess you are too dam dumb to actually read and understand plain english.

"such as denial of care, refusal to pay for medical procedures"

You are confused. Denial of care and refusal to pay is our system today.

"elimination of jury trials for malpractice lawsuits, caps on awarded damages, caps on lawyers' fees, and the "loser pays" requirement that would force him to pay the costs of defense that frivolous lawsuit filers like himself impose on innocent defendants, that are used to hold down costs in those systems."

I don't like that feature if it is even in fact true.

And big friggin deal. You save 1%.

"If we were crippled by our healthcare costs and couldn't compete"

We are crippled by health care costs and can't compete. It is just now become so obvious that even a dittohead can finally see it. You ever hear of term "outsourcing"?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"We are crippled by health care costs and can't compete."

Wrong. We're the most productive country in the world AND, as YOU YOURSELF said, the richest. We are doing just fine, thank you.

Meanwhile, jharp, you whine about costs, but you refuse to do what single-payer countries do to hold down costs -- elimination of jury trials for malpractice lawsuits, caps on awarded damages, caps on lawyers' fees, and the "loser pays" requirement that would force him to pay the costs of defense that frivolous lawsuit filers impose on innocent defendants. Those have been proven to be true; you just didn't bother to read the link already provided.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/01/whats-wrong-in-minnesota.html#comment-144348044

[North Dallas Thirty]

First, jharp, you obviously aren't aware of the facts about single-payer systems.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB111862181968257580.html?mod=Letters

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_pipes27_07-27-07_6766K6Q.1b8cd05.html

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=23229

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/uk-doctors-dont-treat-old-or-unhealthy

Now think how much less the United States could spend if we denied treatment and care to old or unhealthy people, or if we mandated massive wait times, or if we denied people the right to purchase their own health care, the way these single-payer systems do.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Another classic example of a jharp myth; he and his fellow Democrat Party leftists insist that giving away free healthcare to people who refuse to work would "save" money because then people would use emergency rooms, which are the most-expensive form of healthcare, less.

Oops.

"The government's Medicaid program for the poor may put more financial burden on overcrowded hospital emergency rooms than the nation's 47 million uninsured, according to a study published on Thursday.

Researchers at the University of California San Francisco and Stanford University found that the uninsured patients paid 35 percent of their overall emergency room bills in 2004, versus 33 percent for Medicaid.

"What surprised us was that uninsured patients actually pay a higher proportion of their emergency department charges than Medicaid does," said Renee Hsia, an emergency room doctor and researcher at UCSF who led the study.

"This runs counter to the widespread impression that the uninsured are universally poor payers," said Hsia, who noted that the ranks of uninsured include healthy young people who are employed full-time."

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSNB758230720071108?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

And as the first alludes, who were the most likely people to seek out expensive emergency room care? Those on Medicare and Medicaid, the government's free health insurance programs.

"The report also finds that Medicaid patients were four times (81 visits per 100 people) more likely to seek treatment from an ED than those with private insurance (22 visits per 100 people)."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/05news/emergencydept.htm

[jharp]

"Another classic example of a jharp myth; he and his fellow Democrat Party leftists insist that giving away free healthcare to people who refuse to work would "save" money because then people would use emergency rooms, which are the most-expensive form of healthcare, less."

You are a moron. No one except President Bush believes in the emergency room treatment scene as a viable proposal.

Nothing is free and no one is proposing free health care. Are you too goddamed stupid to comprehend that?

And I am well aware of medicaid patients overwhelming use of emergency rooms. So is anyone else that knows how to read. And that is a huge part of the problem. And the main reason is that is the only choice they have.

Why don't you take a look at this problem in single payer systems?

I recall you, North Dallas Thirty, yes you, making a post suggesting I should have aborted my daughter with special needs.

Consider this my last response to you. You are a vile human being and a disgrace to humanity. And your blog sucks too.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"No one except President Bush believes in the emergency room treatment scene as a viable proposal."

Wrong answer.

http://www.house.gov/stark/news/109th/pressreleases/20060207_MedicareForAll.htm

Democrats are constantly screaming that giving away free health insurance would reduce emergency room use. That is false; as I quoted, facts and statistics show that people receiving free government health insurance from Medicaid are four times more likely to use emergency rooms, despite the fact that Medicaid covers visits to regular doctors as well.

Democrats are constantly screaming that the uninsured are not paying to use the emergency room. That is false; as I quoted, the rate of payment for services provided to uninsured people is actually HIGHER than it is for people receiving free government health insurance through Medicaid.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSNB758230720071108?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/05news/emergencydept.htm

[North Dallas Thirty]

"I recall you, North Dallas Thirty, yes you, making a post suggesting I should have aborted my daughter with special needs."

Nope, you lied again.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/11/children-at-the-gate.html#comment-138046236

Unlike your party, I don't believe that babies with special needs should be aborted and/or left to die on the hospital floor. Both you and Barack Obama support that, as well as abortion clinics aiding and abetting the avoidance of laws designed to prevent child sexual abuse.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/16/video-second-indiana-planned-parenthood-clinic-violates-the-law/

But we know how you made fun of children with special needs like your daughter as "ignoramuses".

http://patterico.com/2008/10/02/politico-forecasts-a-psychic-vp-night/#comment-400703

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Both you and Barack Obama support that, as well as abortion clinics aiding and abetting the avoidance of laws designed to prevent child sexual abuse. --"

That is, I believe, one of the platforms Obama used to ride into office. "A fetus in every pot and a dick in every child" was the slogan wasn't it? The pro-child molestation agenda is HUGE in America. Get with the times, chump.

"-- Democrats are constantly screaming that giving away free health insurance would reduce emergency room use. That is false; as I quoted, facts and statistics show that people receiving free government health insurance from Medicaid are four times more likely to use emergency rooms, despite the fact that Medicaid covers visits to regular doctors as well. --"

Yeah, you need to reread that study, NDT. It's addressing the percentage of Medicare recipients who pay in full for care, not the number of Medicare recipients who show up at emergency rooms.

"-- Researchers at the University of California San Francisco and Stanford University found that the uninsured patients paid 35 percent of their overall emergency room bills in 2004, versus 33 percent for Medicaid. --"

Key word here is "paid".

Once again, simply slapping a link on the board and yapping away doesn't lend you any credibility if you don't READ YOUR OWN LINKS.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Yeah, you need to reread that study, NDT. It's addressing the percentage of Medicare recipients who pay in full for care, not the number of Medicare recipients who show up at emergency rooms."

Actually, islamollama, YOU need to do the rereading.

"People on Medicaid -- a $300 billion federal and state insurance program that covers 58 million adults and children who are poor or disabled -- visit emergency rooms at the highest rate, according to the CDC."

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSNB758230720071108?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

And, from the CDC directly:

"The report also finds that Medicaid patients were four times (81 visits per 100 people) more likely to seek treatment from an ED than those with private insurance (22 visits per 100 people)."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/05news/emergencydept.htm

Furthermore, what it shows is that people who have no insurance whatsoever are more likely to pay medical bills than those people who have Medicaid. In that case, why should we pay for Medicaid at all?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"That is, I believe, one of the platforms Obama used to ride into office. "A fetus in every pot and a dick in every child" was the slogan wasn't it? The pro-child molestation agenda is HUGE in America. Get with the times, chump."

Gee, a liberal trying to spin and cover up for her party and her peoples' attempt to skirt child sexual abuse prevention laws. What a surprise.

So you think it's OK to tell thirteen-year-olds to cross state lines to have an abortion? Do you think taxpayers should be paying for these abortion clinics to cover up for adults having sex with minors?

Obama does.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Oh, and jharp....your ignoring my points only enforces my opinion that you've got nothing.

[SacTownMan]

Dallas,

"But we know how you made fun of children with special needs like your daughter as "ignoramuses".

http://patterico.com/2008/10/02/politico-forecasts-a-psychic-vp-night/#comment-400703"

The infamous thread that brought Harpo's lifetime ban from Patterico's.

After posting that vile post about a down syndrome child like Trig he lashed out at the regulars over there saying they were saying crap about HIS kid. More ass backwards logic at work!

I thought they had removed all of his posts over there after finally having enough of his crap!

It was just a couple of days after his Patterico's ban that he returned here to diminish the dialogue of what has been a pretty good blogsite.

As many others here have commented I have no intention of acknowledging any future posts from this tool again.

So while he can continue to rant and cyberbully his way through life he can just go wack off in a closet as far as I'm concerned.

[Todd]

Todd, do you get your news from Weekend Update? Quoting an article by RFK Jr. printed in Rolling Stone?

Really??

Posted by: ET | Monday, January 05, 2009 at 09:59 PM
---------------
Yes. Really, ET. Obviously you didn't read the article.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Furthermore, what it shows is that people who have no insurance whatsoever are more likely to pay medical bills than those people who have Medicaid. In that case, why should we pay for Medicaid at all? --"

Because people on Medicaid are - by definition - more likely to be impoverished than people not on Medicaid. If you have a system specifically designed to insure folks below the poverty line then your sample space is inherently skewed.

People on private insurance also are far more likely to be employed. So if you're suggesting that a pool of fully-employed fully-insured individuals are more likely to make bill payments than folks with partial employment but no insurance who are in turn more likely to make bill payments than folks with no employment who are eligible for food stamps, I would say, "No shit". And if you think getting rid of Medicaid will somehow increase bill payments, I'd question where you think that money would come from or whether the 2% difference between recipients is the payout you were really looking for.

If anything it seems like you'd want to institute some sort of massive private insurance program in the vein of SCHIP, because putting people on private insurance appears to make everything better. If the government just puts everyone on a private insurance plan then - logically - the entire mess cleans itself up. Right?