RunInRed 16,438 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 This is a dated article but I ran across it while doing some research on health care. I know most of you aren't in favor of universal health care coverage. My question is this: what is your plan to reduce health care costs especially in light of the fact the baby boomer generation is approaching retirement? What does McCain propose to address this problem? This is the largest domestic issue facing the next president in my opinion. ----------------------------------------------------- By MATTHEW DALY Associated Press writer WASHINGTON  Starbucks will spend more on health insurance for its employees this year than on raw materials needed to brew its coffee, Chairman Howard Schultz said Wednesday as he decried a health care crisis that could soon overwhelm U.S. businesses. Schultz, whose Seattle-based company provides health care coverage to employees who work at least 20 hours a week, said Starbucks has faced double-digit increases in insurance costs each of the last four years. “It’s completely non-sustainable,'’ he said, even for companies such as his that “want to do the right thing.'’ Schultz made the comments Wednesday at a meeting with Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. The event was one of several organized by Schultz and other executives to call attention to health insurance costs. “I would hope congressional leaders put this at the front of their agenda,'’ said Schultz, noting that most of the estimated 45 million uninsured Americans have jobs. Later, Schultz and other executives, including Costco CEO Jim Sinegal, Dawn Lepore, president and CEO of Drugstore.com, and Ivan Seidenberg, chairman and CEO of Verizon Communications Inc., attended a health care “summit'’ at a Senate office building. Schultz said his passion about health care dates to his youth in Brooklyn, when he watched his father struggle to hold down several low-wage jobs  none of which included health insurance. “I wanted to try and build the company that my father never got a chance to work for,'’ Schultz said. The rising cost of health care has made that dream increasingly difficult, he said. The company expects to spend about $200 million this year for health care for its 80,000 U.S. employees  more than the total amount it spends on green coffee from Africa, Indonesia and other sites. Starbucks has about 100,000 employees worldwide, Schultz said, including about 65 percent who work part-time. Increasingly, the company is hiring older workers, who are attracted in large part by the company’s generous benefits, he said. Lest anyone get the idea the company is altruistic, Schultz said its benefits policy is a key reason Starbucks has low employee turnover and high productivity  facts he said were reflected in the company’s increased stock price, which has more than doubled in the past five years. Schultz declined to endorse any specific legislation, saying his goal was to raise awareness of the problem in a bipartisan fashion. But whatever solution is adopted, he added: “Every single American needs to have access to health insurance  full-stop.'’ Murray, an old friend, called Schultz’s passion on health care refreshing, and said she hoped it would spur congressional action. “I was here for the health care war'’ in the early 1990s, Murray said. “The problem hasn’t gone away.'’ Murray and Smith also praised Issaquah, Wash,-based Costco and Bellevue, Wash,-based Drugstore.com for employee-friendly policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 How about we eliminate frivolous lawsuits by making the prosecutor liable for ALL court costs, including everyone's salary - from the custodian up to the judge, and slap the prosecuting attorney with a short stint in jail. That would lower insurance costs to the health care providers, thus lowering the cost of health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinCrimson 61 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 How about we eliminate frivolous lawsuits by making the prosecutor liable for ALL court costs, including everyone's salary - from the custodian up to the judge, and slap the prosecuting attorney with a short stint in jail. That would lower insurance costs to the health care providers, thus lowering the cost of health care. Sweet Jesus, that makes no sense whatsoever. Who is this "prosecutor" you speak of? I assume you're referring to the plaintiff's attorney, as prosecutors are only involved in criminal cases. What defines "frivolous" in your mind? Do you think every defense verdict that is reached is because the suit was frivolous? Please tell me how you plan to determine and police that. Not only are you unaware of the correct terminology, you don't even have a solution to your imaginary crisis. Read more, post less, and think twice before becoming so giddy about signing away your rights to those who don't give a flying frick about your interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsixfive 328 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Sweet Jesus, that makes no sense whatsoever. Who is this "prosecutor" you speak of? I assume you're referring to the plaintiff's attorney, as prosecutors are only involved in criminal cases. What defines "frivolous" in your mind? Do you think every defense verdict that is reached is because the suit was frivolous? Please tell me how you plan to determine and police that. Not only are you unaware of the correct terminology, you don't even have a solution to your imaginary crisis. Read more, post less, and think twice before becoming so giddy about signing away your rights to those who don't give a flying frick about your interests. I apologize for the terminology abuse. It's late; my Burton's is under a pile somewhere; and Law & Order isn't on TNT or USA, believe it or not. Thanks for implying my post was a blanket statement with a hypersensitive reaction to a simple comment. Obviously, the majority of cases are not frivolous. However, the very small number that are, whether they are awarded or not, drive up costs unnecessarily. The fear of getting hit by one and possibly having to pay out is enough to drive up insurance premiums. The fix is rather simple - make sure ethical and just judges are in place that will adhere to the existing law. And before you twist that comment into some belligerent assertion, most judges are ethical and just. Thanks as well for the liberal response: ignore the problem, question my sanity, scare me, then order me to stop talking about it with a typical master of the internets "read more, post less" quip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinCrimson 61 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Your post was a blanket statement with a hypersensitive reaction to a very simple concept. I'm not trying to be crass, but "throw them in jail" for losing a case is an extremely ignorant, blanket statement. Here we are, living in a society where over 40 million working people may be living without health care and you choose to tackle the issue based on what you admit to be a "very small number" of lawsuits. That's not a solution, bigsixfive, that's an excuse. Are you aware of the fact that in today's America, the doctor simply killing your mother, wife, or child isn't enough to sue? Now, if he shows true negligence in letting momma out of the hospital in 8 hours after ramming a trocar through her jejunum, then he's liable and should pay for his mistake. The practice of assumed risk is more than enough cushion. Simply turning medical professionals, insurance companies, and large corporations loose by imposing caps on punitive damages will solve absolutely nothing and will inevitably lead to a degradation in the system as a whole. It would be the equivalent of giving a President full reign by dissolving checks and balances. You can obviously see how this would not be a good idead. The blitz on judges, too, huh? I'm not going to exactly take up for them based on a variety of reasons, but budges aren't the ones leaving scissors inside opened chest cavities. There is no "existing law" on this issue that they must adhere to, either. Liberal response? No dice. If you want to equate "liberal" with "sane", then be my guest, but just know that the burden of proof falls on you. You made a wild statement based in total fallacy that you're going to be unable to back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 I don't have much time today, but I wanted to weigh in on this. Yes, insurance premiums keep rising. That's because the cost of healthcare keeps rising. That being said, as a demonstration of the Law of Unintentional Consequences, health care costs keep rising in this country as a direct result of government intervention, not despite it. Case in point? Milton Friedman observed that the direct consequence of government intervention in healthcare has tripled its cost. For example, when Medicare and Medicaid were instituted in the 1960s, healthcare comprised about 6% of the GDP. Today that figure is around 17%. So government involvement has definitely not made healthcare any less expensive. I deal with a good number of hospitals, and you wouldn't believe all the staff members that are required to deal with the government's convoluted payment practices. The other thing that government has done is unintentionally inflict monopolistic practices. For example, if you want to build a new hospital somewhere, is it a matter of just buying real estate, hiring an architect, and breaking ground? Absolutely not. You have to go to a state board and present why such a hospital is necessary to the community. What's more, you have to prove that it won't hurt the other hospitals in the area! So rather than have several competing organizations in any given area driving down the costs of care, we instead have a state that basically backs the notion of medical cartels. What's more, it just isn't limited to hospital facilities. Instead, every piece of equipment must be approved for installation. Add to that the credentialing process for doctors, technicians, etc. etc., and you see how hard it is to run a cost-effective hospital. Think about it this way. Healthcare is the only industry in the world where new advances in technology have driven long-term costs UP rather than down when indexed for inflation. Then, of course, there's the litigious environment. I don't think anybody realizes the crushing effect it has on costs. First, doctors have to cover themselves with every test available to avoid a lawsuit. Second, malpractice insurance is making it harder and harder for doctors to practice. Case in point? The average neurosurgeon pays close to $250,000 annually in malpractice insurance. Mind you, these aren't the quacks. These are conscientious practitioners. So, yeah, I'm very wary about Universal Healthcare. You should be, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,438 Posted February 12, 2008 Author Share Posted February 12, 2008 If we are going to talk about Universal Health Care, we must point out the difference between mandated coverage and Government subsidies to reduce cost. Also, we need to be talking about what kind of investments are necessary to help reduce costs. Technological advances are clearly available that have been clearly underfunded over the years. A perfect example would be electronic record keeping, which by all estimates could save hospitals millions and millions. I also agree with Otter, competition is a problem. But I would also add that a lot of insurance, drug and medical companies spend millions lobbying for the current system. So it's easy to blame the Government, but there are a lot more forces in play. I'm still on the fence about true Universal Health Care but I do know something needs to be done about the costs or it will literally crumble. Medicare can not sustain at current levels - then what? Interestingly, we pay more for insurance than any other civilized country in the world, yet our health appears to be little better (we don't have the highest life expectancies, lowest infant mortality rates, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 True story: I went to a doctor recently. I had been going to him for about 3 years. I took a typed list of my symptoms and medical problems for him to put in his file. He glanced at my list for less than one second, gave it back to me and said, "You're a lawyer, you know I can't agree to be liable for all of this." I told him I was going to get a real doctor - one that is more concerned with my health than being sued. What a wimp. Don't kid yourselves, most doctors love to rely on lawyers to do a bunch of additional tests to pad their bank accounts. They use us as culprits, but they love filling their pockets allegedly because of us. I guarantee you they recoup the insurance rates with these tests. And briefly on frivolous lawsuits - We have rules which allow costs and fees to be assessed against anyone bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Not many lawsuits are frivolous, and those that are don't cost a lot of money to defend. This is a red herring. On loser pays - You suffer injuries/damages wrongly inflicted by another person. You sue, but because the defendant lies on the stand, or provides better experts to lie for you, or his lawyer is unscrupulous, you lose. Why should you pay the scoundrel's fees and costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 True story: I went to a doctor recently. I had been going to him for about 3 years. I took a typed list of my symptoms and medical problems for him to put in his file. He glanced at my list for less than one second, gave it back to me and said, "You're a lawyer, you know I can't agree to be liable for all of this." I told him I was going to get a real doctor - one that is more concerned with my health than being sued. What a wimp. Don't kid yourselves, most doctors love to rely on lawyers to do a bunch of additional tests to pad their bank accounts. They use us as culprits, but they love filling their pockets allegedly because of us. I guarantee you they recoup the insurance rates with these tests. And briefly on frivolous lawsuits - We have rules which allow costs and fees to be assessed against anyone bringing a frivolous lawsuit. Not many lawsuits are frivolous, and those that are don't cost a lot of money to defend. This is a red herring. On loser pays - You suffer injuries/damages wrongly inflicted by another person. You sue, but because the defendant lies on the stand, or provides better experts to lie for you, or his lawyer is unscrupulous, you lose. Why should you pay the scoundrel's fees and costs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't it pretty much the case anyway that each side puts in their claim or counter-claim that they want the other side to pay legal fees? If it were indeed a "frivolous" lawsuit wouldn't the judge or jury assign the legal fees to the loser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't it pretty much the case anyway that each side puts in their claim or counter-claim that they want the other side to pay legal fees? If it were indeed a "frivolous" lawsuit wouldn't the judge or jury assign the legal fees to the loser? As a general rule, attorney fees are not recoverable by the prevailing party. Exceptions are contained in statutes, contract and common law (case law). This varies from state to state. As a general rule, the losing party pays court costs not including attorney fees. A prevailing party against a frivolous lawsuit would file a Rule 11 Motion to seek to recover costs and fees. Should the court agree that the suit was frivolous, he/she can order payment. In addition, the court can declare the suit to be frivolous without the defendant filing any motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Increasing cost of healthcare can also be attributed to the fact that we are MUCH less healthy as a nation than we were 50 years ago. The treatment of obesity related ills is growing at a rapid pace. As a nation, we excercise less, eat more, and consume a higher amount of overly processed foods. Also, as a nation, we have conditioned ourselves to go to the doctor at EVERY turn...because we have health insurance. Instead of going to the doctor ONLY when we are sick, we hit up the doctor everytime we get the sniffles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Increasing cost of healthcare can also be attributed to the fact that we are MUCH less healthy as a nation than we were 50 years ago. The treatment of obesity related ills is growing at a rapid pace. As a nation, we excercise less, eat more, and consume a higher amount of overly processed foods. Also, as a nation, we have conditioned ourselves to go to the doctor at EVERY turn...because we have health insurance. Instead of going to the doctor ONLY when we are sick, we hit up the doctor everytime we get the sniffles. You're kidding right? Yes, obesity is a problem. But, fifty years ago, the biggest health problems were caused by malnutrition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If you think we are healthier now as a society than we were back then, you're kidding yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Also, as a nation, we have conditioned ourselves to go to the doctor at EVERY turn...because we have health insurance. Instead of going to the doctor ONLY when we are sick, we hit up the doctor everytime we get the sniffles. Good point and it just gets worse with socialized medicine. If you get health care basically for free without at least having to worry about medical co-pays, then more people are going to be hitting the doctor's office and emergency room for every sniffle and cough. For those that have lived overseas in country's with socialized medicine, they have seen how hard it is to get seen as quickly by a doctor or get a surgery done in a timely manner as compared to the States. I hate to think how long are what type of care I would have gotten for all my back and hip surgeries if I lived in some of those countries, but hey, it would have been free, right? I laugh when I hear people say we have a health care "crisis" in this country. We do not have a health care crisis. The problem is health insurance, because the health care in this country is still the best you will find anywhere on this planet. I am all for making a way to provide decent health coverage for everybody, especially for kids of low income families. However, my fear is that it will turn into a welfare benefit, just giving those that choose to ride the welfare ticket even less initiative to do whatever they can to better themselves so the do not have to rely on public assistance. I do think we are not as healthy today as we were 50 years ago. Heck, I believe there have been tons of medical studies to back that up. I know kids are not as healthy. Technology has made more kids work out their thumbs more then any other part of their body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If you think we are healthier now as a society than we were back then, you're kidding yourself. Life expectancy in 1958 -- 69 years Life expectancy in 2007 -- 78 years You figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If you think we are healthier now as a society than we were back then, you're kidding yourself. Life expectancy in 1958 -- 69 years Life expectancy in 2007 -- 78 years You figure it out. You sure that means we're healthier Otter? It could mean we stay sick a lot longer before we die! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Life expectancy isn't the only measuring stick. And you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.