One Ad finally swung me to Kerry

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Kilmer

Well...for one...the fact that we were safer as American with a corraled Saddam in control than the militant Islamic factions that will end up with control after the elections.

Not to mention that the entire basis for the war was false and many American's have died based upon fabrication and lies...or just incompetence if we actually thought Saddam had the WMD.

I suppose you have to consider what the world will be like 5-10 years from now w/out Saddam to get the proper perspective about our invasion. As far as the WMD issue...so what?

We are properly positioned in the Middle East unlike any time in our history. I will not bore you with the positives that come from our presence so near to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.....

[December90]

Have you all stopped to think about what has caused a spike in the COST of health insurance. Have you ever considered that we have made some of the most incredible medical advances that enable people to live longer heathier more productive lives.

How much did it cost to treat a heart attack patient 25 years ago? (I don't know the answer but I am willing to bet anything that the treatments used 25 years ago would cost a hell of a lot less than the more advanced treatments that we use today.

Are perscriptions drug companies in the business for the profit or because of philanthropic motives? Any idiot (even some liberal ones) can see that if you restrict profit motive you restrict production. Who is willing to spenc BILLIONS of dollars researching new medications if they cannot reap the rewards of the INVESTMENT.

AFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE IS NOT A RIGHT.

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by Kilmer

Well...for one...the fact that we were safer as Americans with a corraled Saddam in control than the militant Islamic factions that will end up with control after the Iraqi elections.

Not to mention that the entire basis for the war was false and many American's have died based upon fabrication and lies...or just incompetence if we actually thought Saddam had the WMD.

methinks that ad wasnt a turning point in your political life.

[Ignatius J.]

Kilmer17,

He doesn't propose to give more by paying less. He proposes having rich people pay for health care for poor people. He's actually been really clear on that....

So, get with the facts if you're going to criticize the Kerry Plan. There are weaknesses, but you'll have to try harder.

Bush so far has offered nothing. (tort reform has been shown to be irrelevant to medical costs)

Kerry has two basic plans that will help make health care cheaper for americans. Taking on catastrophic risk, and allowing drug importation from canada. The second raises the health care costs of canadians, the first is paid for by the rich.

Kilmer's origional point stands, it's not even that kerry's plan is so much better, it's that bush's people have no idea what they are talking about.

[Joe Sick]

Dear God, why do people always bring up tort reform when discussing health costs?

That is the biggest red herring of all and is not supported by any facts.

Kerry has forwarded a plan. What about Bush? It seems we have heard "Lots of "pie in the sky" rhetoric. I want to know HOW they plan on doing all that they say they can do."

My belief is that Bush is still upset he couldn't get into law school and takes every opportunity to dump on lawyers. Of course, he and Cheney have no problem hiding behind them, but that is another story.

--------------------

The Legal System is Not to Blame for Rising Malpractice Premiums

Calls for caps on damages and other tort reforms are usually accompanied by denunciations of the legal system and juries. Proponents of these so-called reforms like to talk about an out-of-control legal system where litigation is escalating, frivolous suits are proliferating, and compensation is excessive. But a closer look at the facts reveals a different picture.

There is no evidence of a litigation explosion in recent years. An analysis of 14 states, published by the National Center for State Courts, found no increase in the volume of medical malpractice cases between 1996 and 2000. In addition, the number of malpractice payments by physicians, as reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, increased from only 14,608 in 1997 to 16,703 in 2001.

Many injured patients are not compensated. While there are isolated examples of large jury awards, the reality is that many seriously injured patients never seek compensation. The chance that an injury caused by medical negligence will lead to litigation is quite low (less than 2 percent), and the frequency of malpractice claims is much smaller than instances of medical negligence (only one malpractice claim is filed for every 7.6 adverse events caused by medical negligence) (Localio et al., 1991)

The legal system already has built-in protections. While more could be done to deter frivolous suits, judges do have the authority to dismiss frivolous cases and can reduce jury awards that they deem excessive.

The Primary Cause of Recent Premium Increases is the Insurance Cycle

The recent rise in malpractice premiums is primarily caused by a predictable change in the insurance cycle, not the legal system. During the mid- and late-1990s, insurers kept premiums low (sometimes below the amount they paid out for malpractice claims) in an effort to increase market share. Insurers were able to use relatively high investment income from bonds and stocks to increase their earnings and keep premiums down.

But now the cycle has turned. Insurers have begun to increase malpractice premiums again to compensate for the price wars that kept premiums low in the 1990s and to adjust to lower investment returns. This cycle of low premiums followed by high premiums also occurred in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s.

A recent study by the Americans for Insurance Reform confirmed the cyclical nature of medical malpractice premiums and concluded that malpractice premiums charged by insurance companies "do not correspond to increases or decreases in payouts, which have been steady for 30 years. Rather, premiums rise and fall in concert with the state of the economy." (October 2002)

Proponents of tort reform like to cite recent increases in medical malpractice premiums to justify caps on non-economic damages. While some of these premium increases are steep, they were preceded by a decade of relatively stable premiums. When one examines premiums over a longer time period - not just the last year or two after the insurance cycle turned - the premium increases are less dramatic. According to the annual survey conducted by Medical Liability Monitor:

The median premium for internists increased from $6,074 to $9,580 between 1992 and 2002 (an overall increase of 58 percent over the past decade).

The median premium for a general surgeon increased from $22,758 to $33,009 between 1992 and 2002 (an overall increase of 45 percent over the past decade).

The median premium for an ob/gyn increased from $40,068 to $50,361 between 1992 and 2002 (an overall increase of 26 percent over the past decade).

Caps on Damages Won't Provide the Relief Doctors Are Seeking

The connection between caps on damages and lower malpractice premiums is more tenuous than doctors may realize. While caps may reduce the amount insurance companies have to pay out to some injured patients, other factors also affect premiums and there is no guarantee that insurers will pass along savings to doctors in the form of lower premiums.

According to a new study by Weiss Ratings, while caps on non-economic damages reduced the amount medical malpractice insurers had to pay out between 1991 and 2002, these payout reductions did not lead to lower premiums. In fact, the median annual premium during this period increased more in states with caps (48.2 percent) than in states without caps (35.9 percent). (June 2003)

An analysis by Business Week found that premiums increased at a slower rate in states with caps during the past two years than states without caps. But in 1999 and 2000, the opposite was true: states without caps had slower premium increases than states with caps. (March 3, 2003)

Capping damages does not necessarily mean low premiums. Detroit has some of the highest malpractice premiums for internists, general surgeons, and ob/gyns in the nation, even though Michigan already caps non-economic damages at $280,000 for most injuries (and a $500,000 cap for certain serious injuries). (Medical Liability Monitor, October 2002)

Some states with no cap on non-economic damages - such as New York and Alabama - are experiencing only modest increases in malpractice premiums. Premiums only increased between zero and five percent in 2002 for doctors in New York. Doctors in Alabama experienced either no increase or a decrease in premiums in 2002. (Medical Liability Monitor, October 2002)

Enacting caps may not cause insurers to decrease premiums. In the 1980s, when Florida approved a $450,000 cap on non-economic damages and several other malpractice changes, the insurance commissioner required malpractice insurers to refile their rates. Aetna Casualty and Surety and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company said the new law would have little or no affect on their claims costs. (Jay Angoff, joint Senate Judiciary and HELP Committee Hearing, February 11, 2003)

---

Facts are the friends of Kerry-Edwards on this point.

Of course, they try to base their decisions on reality instead of Bush's view that everything is just peachy.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

I suppose you have to consider what the world will be like 5-10 years from now w/out Saddam to get the proper perspective about our invasion. As far as the WMD issue...so what?

LOL, this is as partisan as claiming, So Billy got a bj in the White House, so what? But without the deaths of 1000s of people involved.

I believe Kilmer 17 referred to this as, moving the goalposts.

[Thiebear]

I'm smelling a misleading original post now... Doesnt seem to me Kilmer was sitting on the fence now that he's bringing up other issues.. BS detector just went off...

At least i say i'm incredibly biased up front...

You want a physical that wont break the bank: Get a virtual physical for 700 bucks..

Isnt Russia now saying there are certain things they cant afford to give away anymore? and the people say wait: You promised..

We gave up everything for global everything and now you say your not going to give it to us?

Look at the socialist countries in 5-10 years when the the older population is at 50-60%.. the old people hurricane is coming and its going to take down a couple of countries...

[Kilmer]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

I suppose you have to consider what the world will be like 5-10 years from now w/out Saddam to get the proper perspective about our invasion. As far as the WMD issue...so what?

We are properly positioned in the Middle East unlike any time in our history. I will not bore you with the positives that come from our presence so near to Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.....

But we will not be in that grand position in the middle East. Iraq will have their free elections. And afterward the government will be controled by Shiite Muslims who DO NOT favor the west in any way and once it kicks out our Army...which it will be able too...we will be left with another unfriendly terrorist state. That is the long term reality. A waist of American resources and lives.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Kilmer

But we will not be in that grand position in the middle East. Iraq will have their free elections. And afterward the government will be controled by Shiite Muslims who DO NOT favor the west in any way and once it kicks out our Army...which it will be able too...we will be left with another unfriendly terrorist state. That is the long term reality. A waist of American resources and lives.

My friend, you have written the history of Iraq even before the people of that country have a say. I am with Tiebear......your post smacks of a bleeding heart liberal trying to stir the pot.

[Kilmer17]

"(tort reform has been shown to be irrelevant to medical costs)"

Can you give us an example of where Tort reform has failed?

Kerry says he will save us 1000.00 dollars in premiums. I want to know HOW he plans on doing that.

Bush has offered a comprehensive plan including health savings accts, tort reform, etc.

Here it is in it's entirety.

http://georgebush.com/agenda/chapter.aspx?ID=2

It's long and involved so I wont cut and paste. But read it. At the very least you'll change you mind about him having an idea.

[Kilmer17]

"Dear God, why do people always bring up tort reform when discussing health costs?"

Because it's the single biggest reason for the skyrocketing costs.

[Kilmer]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

methinks that ad wasnt a turning point in your political life.

LOL...

I don't consider this a "turning point". I am a conservative christion who favors Republican stances on many grounds. But I cannot vote for incompetence. Bush is an embarassment and its too bad that the Democratic party is so f-ed up that they cannot come up with better canidates than Gore and Kerry. I mean Bush is weakest imcombant in years and Kerry by all rights should be able to cruise to victory. But the biggest problem with Kerry is he is an elite politician through in through and therefore has no substance.

[Joe Sick]

The drug companies get more tax cuts than other industries. They get most of their R&D back in tax breaks. They get free R&D from the government.

Another thing we should do is ban TV and radio advertising for drugs. If you have a problem, the doctor will find it. We are breeding a society of hypochondriacs.

----

In 1998, drug companies earned $22 billion, chalking up a 5% greater profit margin than that of any other American industry. They had a little help from their friends, of course.The Congressional Research Service reported in 1999 that the drug industry paid 16.2% in taxes from 1993 to 1996, while all other major industries had an average tax rate of 27.3%. The drug industry was able to reduce its tax bill by approximately $3.8 billion in 1996 alone, owing to tax breaks for research and development granted by a Congress awash in drug company donations.

     The National Institutes of Health donate research to the industry, which patents the information, although it is acquired at taxpayer expense. The FDA works hand in glove with the industry and too often grants its seal of approval to drugs that have not been subjected to independent testing.

[Kilmer17]

"Another thing we should do is ban TV and radio advertising for drugs. If you have a problem, the doctor will find it. We are breeding a society of hypochondriacs."

Oh dear lord I just found myself agreeing with JW.

That's all for me for the weekend. Enjoy.

[KevinthePRF]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

My friend, you have written the history of Iraq even before the people of that country have a say. I am with Tiebear......your post smacks of a bleeding heart liberal trying to stir the pot.

I didn't know it was the US's job, at the cost of over a 1000 US lives and countless of your and my tax dollars, to write the history of Iraq.

The funny thing about the Iraq issue is I'm taking a CONSERVATIVE stance! Iraq should deal with Iraq's problems, their people are the ones who let that maniac in power why are we going to play world police and take care of their problem dictator?

Let's save OUR own lives.

Let's save YOUR tax dollars.

We don't need a 51rst state of the Union halfway around the world.

[Kilmer]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

My friend, you have written the history of Iraq even before the people of that country have a say. I am with Tiebear......your post smacks of a bleeding heart liberal trying to stir the pot.

Well of course I must be a bleeding heart liberal if I vote democratic...how typical.

No I was just posted this because I am pretty pissed I am forced to vote Kerry. The Ad truly was the final straw. It was more of a rant and then you guys asked the questions and I felt I should respond.

I don't need to convince anyone else to vote for Kerry, hell I can't come up with anything better than "anyone but Bush". Because in reality, that is how I am finally voting and that saddens me.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

The drug companies get more tax cuts than other industries. They get most of their R&D back in tax breaks. They get free R&D from the government.

Another thing we should do is ban TV and radio advertising for drugs. If you have a problem, the doctor will find it. We are breeding a society of hypochondriacs.

WHAT A *****Y INVESTMENT THAT IS. Your comments border on Un-American. You fault the government for giving tax breaks for reaserch and Development of Drugs?!?! Fool! Think about what you just said!!

you also forget we live in a capitalistic society. So guess what? The drug companies are going to SELL their product!!! WOW!! What a novel idea.

Give me you address. I will send you a one way ticket to the destination of your choice. Russia or Canada. Enjoy socialism for a few years and then write me a letter telling me how you feel about capitalism.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by troyster

Most people who are voting Kerry are doing it because they don't like Bush or his policies. You are one of the few I've seen who actually seems to idolize Kerry. Do you really read a piece of drivel like that and think it means anything? All I saw in there that wasn't empty promises was a plan to allow importing drugs from Canada.

Do you actually buy into stuff like this, "The Kerry-Edwards plan harnesses American ingenuity to cut waste, save billions, and take new steps to ensure patient privacy." How exactly do you harness ingenuity to save billions? Is it like harnessing a horse?

C'mon man, both of these candidates are full of it when it comes to this kind of thing.

Once again, nothing to add to the conversation just more negatives about Kerry. I don't "idolize" Kerry, but it is obvious to most that he has better plans that our current moron-in-chief.

THAT is the main problem. Bush had his chance to positively impact this problem and he didn't. Just more corporate welfare. Prescription drug cards are a scam, as the cost has already gone up enough to counter any perceived $ benefit.

I supposed Republicans wouldn't mind if Bush went through his whole 8 years without accomplishing anything, as long as they could blame it on Kerry or liberals.

Isn't REimporting drugs from Canada better than anything Bush has done for the problem? He specifically wrote that we couldn't reimport drugs. Just another industry that he is totally in the pocket of and people don't care. Do you really think that it is a coincidence that Bob Dole was the spokesman for Viagra? It's called payback!

This has to stop!

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by Kilmer

Well of course I must be a bleeding heart liberal if I vote democratic...how typical.

No I was just posted this because I am pretty pissed I am forced to vote Kerry. The Ad truly was the final straw. It was more of a rant and then you guys asked the questions and I felt I should respond.

I don't need to convince anyone else to vote for Kerry, hell I can't come up with anything better than "anyone but Bush". Because in reality, that is how I am finally voting and that saddens me.

Bye,Bye. If you were that shallow you must not have as a conservative a background as you lead us to believe. Remember as you make your vote, Kerry is the most Liberal senator this country has.

[Beaudry]

You guys are all missing the point! Who is the hot chick in Jackson Ward's sig pic? She's smokin' hot! Let's find more pictures of her instead of arguing about something as silly as who will be our president.

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by ShonyX

You guys are all missing the point! Who is the hot chick in Jackson Ward's sig pic? She's smokin' hot! Let's find more pictures of her instead of arguing about something as silly as who will be our president.

Yea, I say send her to Iraq as a diplomat with a shirt like that. She would get along quite well Zar-Qaui and their head chopping friends.........

[The Sir]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

WHAT A *****Y INVESTMENT THAT IS. Your comments border on Un-American. You fault the government for giving tax breaks for reaserch and Development of Drugs?!?! Fool! Think about what you just said!!

you also forget we live in a capitalistic society. So guess what? The drug companies are going to SELL their product!!! WOW!! What a novel idea.

Give me you address. I will send you a one way ticket to the destination of your choice. Russia or Canada. Enjoy socialism for a few years and then write me a letter telling me how you feel about capitalism.

I love it when republicans call people that don't agree with them "Un-American"

[portisizzle]

Originally posted by atlhawksfan

I love it when republicans call people that don't agree with them "Un-American"

Ahhhh. American was not built on SOCIALISM!! How about defending your own turf instead of trying to flame my points.

[troyster]

Originally posted by Jackson's Ward

Once again, nothing to add to the conversation just more negatives about Kerry. I don't "idolize" Kerry, but it is obvious to most that he has better plans that our current moron-in-chief.

THAT is the main problem. Bush had his chance to positively impact this problem and he didn't. Just more corporate welfare. Prescription drug cards are a scam, as the cost has already gone up enough to counter any perceived $ benefit.

I supposed Republicans wouldn't mind if Bush went through his whole 8 years without accomplishing anything, as long as they could blame it on Kerry or liberals.

Isn't REimporting drugs from Canada better than anything Bush has done for the problem? He specifically wrote that we couldn't reimport drugs. Just another industry that he is totally in the pocket of and people don't care. Do you really think that it is a coincidence that Bob Dole was the spokesman for Viagra? It's called payback!

This has to stop!

I was speaking negatively about your use of pure propaganda to try to make a point. I said BOTH guys are full of it if you read my post. You are the one making out Kerry to be some kind of superhero all of the time. If Kerry was as good as you paint him, he'd be wiping the floor with Bush. I think they both stink, that's why I'm voting Badnarik, even though VA seems pretty close.

You're the one who spouts negatives contstantly (ex: "moron-in-chief"). If you want others to be objective, try it out yourself for once. I was specifically criticizing the BS you pasted in your earlier post that had almost zero substance.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by portisbowwow

WHAT A *****Y INVESTMENT THAT IS. Your comments border on Un-American. You fault the government for giving tax breaks for reaserch and Development of Drugs?!?! Fool! Think about what you just said!!

you also forget we live in a capitalistic society. So guess what? The drug companies are going to SELL their product!!! WOW!! What a novel idea.

Give me you address. I will send you a one way ticket to the destination of your choice. Russia or Canada. Enjoy socialism for a few years and then write me a letter telling me how you feel about capitalism.

I thought the old "unAmerican" diatribe was discarded after we invaded Iraq. Oh, well. Some people just like the old favorites I guess.

If you're really giving out tickets to Canada (or could that be one of those "exaggerations") send me one. I'd love to go.

Here are some facts for you to chew on.

• the top U.S. drug makers spend 2.5 times as much on marketing and administration as they do on research

This means that they are spending twice as much to convince you that you need a drug than actually finding new ones that help you.

•at least a third of the drugs marketed by industry leaders were discovered by universities or small biotech companies, writes Angell, but they’re sold to the public at inflated prices. She cites Taxol, the cancer drug discovered by the National Institutes of Health, but sold by Bristol-Myers Squibb for $20,000 a year, reportedly 20 times the manufacturing cost. The company agreed to pay the NIH only 0.5 percent in royalties for the drug.

If a drug is discovered and developed with public money, it should be available to the public at cost.

•The majority of the new products the industry puts out are “me-too” drugs, which are almost identical to current treatments but “no better than drugs already on the market to treat the same condition.” Around 75 percent of new drugs approved by the FDA are me-too drugs.

•The drug companies used free market rhetoric while avoiding compettition at all costs.

This means they can slightly modify a drug yet extend the monopoly on it.

•In 2002, the top 10 American [pharmaceutical] companies in the Fortune 500 made 17 percent of their sales in profits, whereas they spent only 14 percent on R&D. The median for the other Fortune 500 companies was between 3 percent of sales. So, you can’t make an argument that they’re just eking out a living, just managing to cover their R&D costs.