[ucodegen]

It’s obvious where all the money is going — to the insurance companies!

There is some truth to malpractice insurance driving out doctors..

From CNN.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/news/economy/health_care_doctors_quitting/index.htm?postversion=2009091404

That said, there is also the problem of the AMA not disciplining some of their doctors who ‘serial malpractice suit’ recipients. You also have some doctors that order excessive tests, or tests that are effectively duplicates (same but different) because of kickbacks, because they want to find a way to justify surgery when not needed. Add in a bit of crazy tort awards and the attempts of insurance companies to ‘increase their bottom line’ and the result is that everyone else gets hosed.

Now we want to make insurance mandatory?.. didn’t anybody learn from the mandatory auto insurance in California? It was touted as a way to reduce insurance costs.. but it didn’t. Why were people surprised that it didn’t? Create a captive demand in a market and only one thing happens – prices go up. California voters got so annoyed that they even created another bureaucracy – Insurance commissioner.. which really hasn’t done anything anyway.

What really needs to happen is that people need to get more involved in their health and decisions related to their health. There needs to be reform in how doctors are disciplined, as well as tort reform. Throwing it ‘over the wall’ to insurance will not achieve this. Insurance will only pass on the cost to the customer with their management fees added – The money that insurance companies use to pay the claims – comes from their insured.

[ucodegen]

It’s obvious where all the money is going — to the insurance companies!

There is some truth to malpractice insurance driving out doctors..

From CNN.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/news/economy/health_care_doctors_quitting/index.htm?postversion=2009091404

That said, there is also the problem of the AMA not disciplining some of their doctors who ‘serial malpractice suit’ recipients. You also have some doctors that order excessive tests, or tests that are effectively duplicates (same but different) because of kickbacks, because they want to find a way to justify surgery when not needed. Add in a bit of crazy tort awards and the attempts of insurance companies to ‘increase their bottom line’ and the result is that everyone else gets hosed.

Now we want to make insurance mandatory?.. didn’t anybody learn from the mandatory auto insurance in California? It was touted as a way to reduce insurance costs.. but it didn’t. Why were people surprised that it didn’t? Create a captive demand in a market and only one thing happens – prices go up. California voters got so annoyed that they even created another bureaucracy – Insurance commissioner.. which really hasn’t done anything anyway.

What really needs to happen is that people need to get more involved in their health and decisions related to their health. There needs to be reform in how doctors are disciplined, as well as tort reform. Throwing it ‘over the wall’ to insurance will not achieve this. Insurance will only pass on the cost to the customer with their management fees added – The money that insurance companies use to pay the claims – comes from their insured.

[ucodegen]

It’s obvious where all the money is going — to the insurance companies!

There is some truth to malpractice insurance driving out doctors..

From CNN.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/14/news/economy/health_care_doctors_quitting/index.htm?postversion=2009091404

That said, there is also the problem of the AMA not disciplining some of their doctors who ‘serial malpractice suit’ recipients. You also have some doctors that order excessive tests, or tests that are effectively duplicates (same but different) because of kickbacks, because they want to find a way to justify surgery when not needed. Add in a bit of crazy tort awards and the attempts of insurance companies to ‘increase their bottom line’ and the result is that everyone else gets hosed.

Now we want to make insurance mandatory?.. didn’t anybody learn from the mandatory auto insurance in California? It was touted as a way to reduce insurance costs.. but it didn’t. Why were people surprised that it didn’t? Create a captive demand in a market and only one thing happens – prices go up. California voters got so annoyed that they even created another bureaucracy – Insurance commissioner.. which really hasn’t done anything anyway.

What really needs to happen is that people need to get more involved in their health and decisions related to their health. There needs to be reform in how doctors are disciplined, as well as tort reform. Throwing it ‘over the wall’ to insurance will not achieve this. Insurance will only pass on the cost to the customer with their management fees added – The money that insurance companies use to pay the claims – comes from their insured.

[ucodegen]

American Red Cross was selling tainted Blood and factor 7
for 3 years during the Aids crisis. Until they came up with a
fast test, they just accepted contaminated blod.

The problem was that the French system was still doing it after the tests were available. The use of AIDS tainted blood was effectively done ‘knowingly’ vs ‘unknowingly’ because a test was not available. There is a big difference between the two. That is why the criminal prosecution. Look at the timescale.. three years vs over 10 years.

[ucodegen]

American Red Cross was selling tainted Blood and factor 7
for 3 years during the Aids crisis. Until they came up with a
fast test, they just accepted contaminated blod.

The problem was that the French system was still doing it after the tests were available. The use of AIDS tainted blood was effectively done ‘knowingly’ vs ‘unknowingly’ because a test was not available. There is a big difference between the two. That is why the criminal prosecution. Look at the timescale.. three years vs over 10 years.

[ucodegen]

American Red Cross was selling tainted Blood and factor 7
for 3 years during the Aids crisis. Until they came up with a
fast test, they just accepted contaminated blod.

The problem was that the French system was still doing it after the tests were available. The use of AIDS tainted blood was effectively done ‘knowingly’ vs ‘unknowingly’ because a test was not available. There is a big difference between the two. That is why the criminal prosecution. Look at the timescale.. three years vs over 10 years.

[ucodegen]

American Red Cross was selling tainted Blood and factor 7
for 3 years during the Aids crisis. Until they came up with a
fast test, they just accepted contaminated blod.

The problem was that the French system was still doing it after the tests were available. The use of AIDS tainted blood was effectively done ‘knowingly’ vs ‘unknowingly’ because a test was not available. There is a big difference between the two. That is why the criminal prosecution. Look at the timescale.. three years vs over 10 years.

[ucodegen]

American Red Cross was selling tainted Blood and factor 7
for 3 years during the Aids crisis. Until they came up with a
fast test, they just accepted contaminated blod.

The problem was that the French system was still doing it after the tests were available. The use of AIDS tainted blood was effectively done ‘knowingly’ vs ‘unknowingly’ because a test was not available. There is a big difference between the two. That is why the criminal prosecution. Look at the timescale.. three years vs over 10 years.

[ucodegen]

yeah, lets have the french system…

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1S1-9199902100263591.html
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/073192sci-aids.html

and a court result….

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-dismisses–aidstainted-blood-case-647310.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/fran-j28.shtml

They were delivering known AIDS tainted blood to transfusions.. because they didn’t want the cost of destroying their blood supply… nice!

It took them more than 10 years to finally bring these people to justice (maybe).. you can’t sue the state in France.

[ucodegen]

yeah, lets have the french system…

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1S1-9199902100263591.html
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/073192sci-aids.html

and a court result….

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-dismisses–aidstainted-blood-case-647310.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/fran-j28.shtml

They were delivering known AIDS tainted blood to transfusions.. because they didn’t want the cost of destroying their blood supply… nice!

It took them more than 10 years to finally bring these people to justice (maybe).. you can’t sue the state in France.

[ucodegen]

yeah, lets have the french system…

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1S1-9199902100263591.html
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/073192sci-aids.html

and a court result….

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-dismisses–aidstainted-blood-case-647310.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/fran-j28.shtml

They were delivering known AIDS tainted blood to transfusions.. because they didn’t want the cost of destroying their blood supply… nice!

It took them more than 10 years to finally bring these people to justice (maybe).. you can’t sue the state in France.

[ucodegen]

yeah, lets have the french system…

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1S1-9199902100263591.html
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/073192sci-aids.html

and a court result….

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-dismisses–aidstainted-blood-case-647310.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/fran-j28.shtml

They were delivering known AIDS tainted blood to transfusions.. because they didn’t want the cost of destroying their blood supply… nice!

It took them more than 10 years to finally bring these people to justice (maybe).. you can’t sue the state in France.

[ucodegen]

yeah, lets have the french system…

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1S1-9199902100263591.html
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/073192sci-aids.html

and a court result….

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-court-dismisses–aidstainted-blood-case-647310.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/fran-j28.shtml

They were delivering known AIDS tainted blood to transfusions.. because they didn’t want the cost of destroying their blood supply… nice!

It took them more than 10 years to finally bring these people to justice (maybe).. you can’t sue the state in France.

[ucodegen]

@svelte
Nope.. we got the point of your post.. and pointed out the weakness of it. How about trying it for yourself and seeing what happens? Brakes smoke, not burn or burst into flames. You also missed my statement:

If you have run-away acceleration and decide to use the brakes to maintain speed but not stop the vehicle, you can fade them to nothing.. but they will smoke and not ignite…

We didn’t deny that he had the foot on the brakes.. but pointed out that there were at least 2 other ways to stop the vehicle.. neutral and turning it off. Having smoking brakes led me to suspect that the officer used the brakes to keep the vehicle at the speed limit until he overheated them.. instead of immediately stopping because the vehicle was not behaving safely (and as a safety officer no less). Had he used the brakes to stop the car when it started to have the run-away acceleration, it would have worked. If he had used the brakes to maintain speed – he would have overheated them to the point that they would be useless (like riding the brakes down a long mountain road instead of downshifting – at some point the brakes overheat to the point that they will not work).

If a car has ‘runaway acceleration’, you have to commit to stopping it instead of hoping to ride your brakes until you get home.

[ucodegen]

@svelte
Nope.. we got the point of your post.. and pointed out the weakness of it. How about trying it for yourself and seeing what happens? Brakes smoke, not burn or burst into flames. You also missed my statement:

If you have run-away acceleration and decide to use the brakes to maintain speed but not stop the vehicle, you can fade them to nothing.. but they will smoke and not ignite…

We didn’t deny that he had the foot on the brakes.. but pointed out that there were at least 2 other ways to stop the vehicle.. neutral and turning it off. Having smoking brakes led me to suspect that the officer used the brakes to keep the vehicle at the speed limit until he overheated them.. instead of immediately stopping because the vehicle was not behaving safely (and as a safety officer no less). Had he used the brakes to stop the car when it started to have the run-away acceleration, it would have worked. If he had used the brakes to maintain speed – he would have overheated them to the point that they would be useless (like riding the brakes down a long mountain road instead of downshifting – at some point the brakes overheat to the point that they will not work).

If a car has ‘runaway acceleration’, you have to commit to stopping it instead of hoping to ride your brakes until you get home.

[Author]

Posts