Lobster wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 1:03pm:

Lobster,

I have had a very brief look around for precise information relating to professional indemnity insurance for the medical profession, but have found nothing specific that would give you a definitive comparison between the US and the UK.

That said, there is a growing "lawsuit culture" in the UK that is becoming similar to that in the US. Already certain types of insurance are becoming very expensive thanks to the recent upsurge in legal companies offering to sue on behalf of victims, on a "no-win-no-fee" basis.  I am sure that there will be an inevitable rise in lawsuits against medical practitioners as "victims" try to extract cash.

A culture of lawsuits is iniquitous as it benefits no one in the long run, unless the lawsuit provides to the victim genuine compensation for a genuine loss.  In my opinion, any malpractice should be dealt with at General Medical Council or Court level and the practitioner sanctioned in accordance with what is prescribed in law. Lawsuits should reserved only for exceptional circumstances.

With the above in mind, unless the UK gets a grip on this obscene and ruinous practice of exchanging justice for cash, our medical profession will be rendered too expensive thanks to their crippling insurance bills.

Below is one website I found that wasn't trying to sell me indemnity insurance. Its not that useful, but its a start...

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to or

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself...

Without profit motive, how does the quality of healthcare not decline?

If there is no incentive to get into the business, why would anybody get into the business?  Why even *try* to find a medicine that works for some malady if there is no possibility that it is profitable?

Why spend $1,000,000 on an education if there's no opportunity to make it back in that line of work?

The 'free market' is not perfect.  Far from it.  Man is not perfect and perfection cannot be expected.  So we have given government the power to enforce the social contract that exists not because we wrote it, but because it exists.

That 'social contract' is expressed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.  This form of government, one that acknowledges that all of us have fundamental rights given to us all by a higher power (without requiring any of the citizens to pledge allegiance to any specific deity or person) was unprecedented.  Though it was written by those who had slaves, it had already been acknowledged by the framers that the idea of slavery was incompatible with the documents.  My point is, they knew that strict adherence to the enumerated rights of the people, and more importantly, the specific limitations of government, would give rise to the greatest nation in the history of mankind.  On that topic, sane people can have vigorous disagreement, but it cannot be denied that the USA has led the world in wealth production, advances in the standard of living, and many other areas.  Where we have faltered, it is where we have ventured in to socialist and/or Marxist policies.  Detractors point at our disaster of an economy as a perfect example of the failure of capitalism, yet the cause of the collapse can be pinned directly on government intervention in free markets.

I fear this is what is beginning to happen with healthcare, only the consequences will be far worse.

Charlie wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 7:02pm:


Last month the drug companies were "evil" too. Did they suddenly grow halos become "unevil" because the White House is taking their special interest money?

If the insurance companies start lining pockets in the White House, will become "unevil" too? 

It's all about party politics and growing a power base instead of fixing a real problem. No change - same old same old.

Marc

Callico wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 1:32am:


It would be easy to create a system where profiatbility is possible but profiteering is held in check. The UK's healthcare system is a (not perfect) living breathing example where patients generally get exceptional value for money yet healthcare providers make enough to stay in business, some more profitably than others, which can be attributed to better management of their resources/businesses.

The days of a free ride need to be brought to an end; healthcare providers must succeed on merit, not obscene profits from mediocre service.

Quote:


Quote:


So some are entitled to a free ride, but others aren't? You can't have it both ways. More evidence to me that you're just here to stir up some shit.

Oh, I'll butt out alright. I just felt the need to point out to others how hypocritical your socialist philosophy is. I've accomplished my goal.

Now y'all have a nice life, y'hear?

I guess it depends on your perspective.

Now you go ahead - the last word is yours.

Melissa wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 8:32pm:


Not as much a failure as might be reflecting a certain shortcoming in part.


Melissa wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2009 at 8:32pm:


Quote:


This hits on something long a part to be understood, but difficult to be seen trickling down.

Reforms were required in the Progressive Era of the early 20th century to counter the some of the worst results of the Gilded Age of capitalism.  But by presupposing that capitalists had a sense of social responsibility, which would prevent the need for aggressive federal intervention in the marketplace, things didn't turn out that way leading to the Depression.  Coincidentally the time when the term "special interests" was coined.
  In today's world, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil has expressed social responsibility at their annual meeting as the duty to continue marketing oil as America's energy.  A far different tune than what might have been intended by the term.

A factor being ignored in the present debate is the amount of choice presently available to every US resident.

Your insurance company is evil?  There are 200 others that will take your business instantly if you are in good health. 

Your doctor or hospital is evil?  Pick another.

Your drugs are too expensive?  Use another pharmacy, perhaps an overseas one.

If you find that they are all just a 'bad', then you are probably learning the reality of the situation... good health care is complex and expensive. 

Ironically, at the same time we are screaming for lower rates we are also asking for increased lifetime max amounts and coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Pre-existing conditions... someone with no insurance comes down with cancer... so they get a low-end job with benefits... and magically the insurance company is supposed to cough up $500,000 in treatment.  It's magic!

Lobster,

You still have those choices with public healthcare. We still pick our own doctors and what pharmacy we want to use.

Chris

Kevin_M wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2009 at 10:18am:


Wouldn't it be reassuring to know that under a universal healthcare scheme you'd be automatically entitled to the treatment you need through no reason other than you are a United States citizen?

Just one last observation and I will leave this thread.  As in Congress "the bickering has to stop".  If we put this much time, effort and emotion into curing Ch, our time would be better spent.

Love to all
Louise