Maybe then that’s what needs limiting.
Monsanto is not innocent by any means, to be honest. The damage should be limited to 20M or something like that, and more people should start suing 
Still, our court system asks for document proof and provide compensation for that. Person may be Mark Z or a poor unemployed or daily wages worker. How will you value a person’s life? 10M or 20M or 2B? Earning person may be attached to family behind the scene. There are lot of single income earner with four in family.
Take a case of car accidents with no injury, one party pays another party for the damages. But, there are plenty of hassles, the damaged car person goes through daily until car is brought into normal condition. This may take 15 days to 90 days hassle. Hard to account those.
When loss occurs, it affects so much, putting a limit is an issue.
Geniuses are so rare. This is where authoritative government works wonder. Use the median pay of Americans, get it from IRS, published it monthly (or annually?) so everybody knows.
1 Like
The only way to control health costs is single payer. Medicare for all. No lawsuits allowed. Just discipline rules and fines against bad hospitals and doctors. No insurance. Tax employers what they now pay for private insurance. Tax individuals an equivalent if the have no employer insurance. Tax Subsidies for people making under $50k
Price controls for health services. Cost control is key
2 Likes
OMG, is Mr. South Lake Tahoe advocating price fixing?? Did not capitalism in its purest form reward you handsomely, Sir? Before you answer that question, let me remind you that you are under oath… (yeah, so were the last few characters…)
I’ve never seen any evidence showing that single payer is cheaper. Medicare is facing a funding shortfall. The administrative burden of dealing with them is worse than that for dealing with private insurers. They often under-reimburse with everyone else left to pick up the shortfall. Countries like Switzerland - which is not single payer - and Germany, which has a hybrid system, provide health care on par with the US. Single payer systems like England’s do not. You get what you pay for.
Trump says that the accusations are “hoax” from the White House, not even from the campaign rally. This will escalate and won’t go away.
Did BK even get his robe fitted yet???
Emergency rooms can turn no one away. It is the most expensive health care. We are all subsidizing emergency rooms. Make health care more accessible affordable and tax every one. Even illegals that get free medical care at emergency rooms
1 Like
It is MUCH cheaper to subsidize emergency room visits than it is to subsidize policies that cover every ache, pain, and boo-boo. And it just makes sense. If you have no insurance than you are entitled to care if it really is an emergency. Otherwise, not. ACA, while lowering the number of uninsured through subsidies, did absolutely nothing to reduce ER visits. In fact, they increased.
1 Like
Definitely need a charge per visit. $50 min?
Frivolous visiting need to be stopped. Online diagnostic services and urgent care centers needed to support hospitals
[quote=“acre, post:67, topic:5962”]
I’ve never seen any evidence showing that single payer is cheaper.
[/quote]
http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2136864-2,00.html
Because she was 64, not 65, Janice S. was not on Medicare. But seeing what Medicare would have paid Stamford Hospital for the troponin test if she had been a year older shines a bright light on the role the chargemaster plays in our national medical crisis — and helps us understand the illegitimacy of that $199.50 charge. That’s because Medicare collects troves of data on what every type of treatment, test and other service costs hospitals to deliver. Medicare takes seriously the notion that nonprofit hospitals should be paid for all their costs but actually be nonprofit after their calculation. Thus, under the law, Medicare is supposed to reimburse hospitals for any given service, factoring in not only direct costs but also allocated expenses such as overhead, capital expenses, executive salaries, insurance, differences in regional costs of living and even the education of medical students.
It turns out that Medicare would have paid Stamford $13.94 for each troponin test rather than the $199.50 Janice S. was charged.
I am from S Korea where we have single payer.
The overall health cost is at least 10 times cheaper than US. The quality of service is not worse than US. Primary health care is way more accessible there than in US.
1 Like
And I’m sure there are piles of other differences - like a lower cost of living and no frivolous lawsuits.
Lawsuit and activism are the two major flaws of the Democrats Party. Rent control is the 3rd.
S Korea example was just supporting evidence.
My point was “health care cost with medicare is way cheaper than cost with private insurance”. The reason why is because single payer has cost control power. This is exactly how other countries like S Korea and Japan control health care cost at the reasonable rate.
BTW, in Seoul, 1500sf condo in good school district is over 2 million. Living cost there is not cheap at all.
1 Like
Legal activism is very dangerous to our rule of law. Many liberal activist judges are really abusing their power.
“And it will be a push against the liberal activist court which tries to create laws through their judicial rulings.”
but they don’t have stupid lawsuit like US. one of the reason why so expensive here because the hospital will try to make sure you run every single test to cover their butt . and they have to calculate the lawsuit cost. A lot of lawsuit are nonsense and won for ridiculous amount of $$…
Totally agree there. An acquaintance goes in for the dumbest reasons. Always broke or near to it. I couldn’t understand until she told me that at least in CA access is race-based - the deductible on her plan is paid by Medicaid because she’s part Inuit. Has nothing to do with her income. This is nuts.
And robo-docs are proven better at diagnosing than human ones. No subjectivity. We need more technology in medicine but the application has to be for efficiency, not just for squeezing out a few more months of life. Urgent care centers are great cost savers. And often you only need a nurse, not a doctor. Nurses are often as good or better than the doctors at getting the problem right. If you need a prescription - the one thing nurses can’t do - they can always do a quick online or phone consult.
But ACA was sold in part on the promise that going to the doctor more frequently would cut down on ER visits. It doesn’t.
Try online doctor for $50 per visit. DoctorOnDemand can give you a video doctor visit at 3am for $50, really convenient