OUCH!......I need to go to the DOCTOR..

[RyanH]

But, I can't without calling my HMO to get approval. The appointed President has now vowed to veto THE PATIENT'S BILL of RIGHTS, which would allow all Americans, young and old, to sue their HMO's.

The Appointed President said in the news that he's "worried about the number of suits" that would result as a consequence of the bill. (Although in states that have already passed HMO reform legislation, the number of lawsuits have actually went down).

Further, the APPOINTED PRESIDENT, said that he wants the independent review committee that would review claims before they could be sued upon----to be appointed by the insurance companies themselves. He would also cap damages to a mere 500,000 (Shit, what if I lose a body part), and would deny one the right to sue in state court.

Great to have a Pro-Insurance company Appointed President isn't it?

 

[danielson]

HMO = house medical officer

appointed president = who ?



i do think a review body for medical claims is good. doctors do make mistakes and its unfair on the doctor to have his career on the line on a patients whim....if he was neglegent then sue his ass, but if he had 2 choices and he made the wrong one, i think its for medicaslly trained independant proffesionals to decide whether he was neglegent or not, as opposed to a judge who may know nothing. but this is just my opinion

 

[RyanH]

HMOs=insurance companies and their lobby

Appointed President: President G.W. Bush II.

 

[smallmovesal]

one reason i love my country, even though they're messing with our medicare...

 

[danielson]

im sorry years of whacking off have destroyed what few brain cells i have, so can u explain this in english to me

Dubya is stopping abil that would stop patients suing there lawyers....damn, im getting really stupid, what i said sounds stupid but its all i understand from what u typed. explain as im interested in his stuff.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

Ryan, you attempt at using emotion to get support for your agenda is quite pathetic.

I could maybe go along with the bill if the people could not sue their employers. It would be alright to sue your HMO if necessary. However, this will be taken advantage of by the usual losers looking for free money.

Look for many companies to drop employee healthcare. Where are you going to turn than, maybe Hillary?

Small, yea and your taxes are well worth it, right? Wonder why many cannadians cannot even get a simple surgery and many with cancer are now coming to the US for treatment?

 

[RyanH]

Ryan, you attempt at using emotion to get support for your agenda is quite pathetic.

However, this will be taken advantage of by the usual losers looking for free money.

Some states have already enacted HMO reform legislation, and those states have seen a drop in the number of suits brought by plaintiffs.

It's all about ACCOUNTABILITY-----Insurance companies should be held accountable to their clients...

 

[BackDoc]

First hand knowledge, let me throw in my 2 cents worth: it's not every doctor's dream to get involved with an HMO. However, they have exclusivity for different companies and workers. What this means to the average self-employed physician is that if an industry or company nearby with an employee base of 5,000 workers is in need of his or her specialty, then it would be financially feasible for them to try and become a provider under that plan. After all, getting paid by an HMO is easier than hoping a patient's check doesn't bounce. Although it would be nice to say that all doctors are of equal skill and caliber, that is simply not the case. Even doctors who are the only ones in their area to be an in-network provider were not always chosen for their skill and reputation. This is the flat out truth.

No one is putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to join an HMO. Most companies and organizations allow for a choice between separate plans of HMO or PPO, but of course they all do not. So you can either accept it or decline it and pay out of pocket and/or have a separate health insurance policy. You can even have both, but don't expect them to forget about subrogation clause! If your company or organization does not allow you to choose any other type of plan, then you might consider legal action in the first place. This is America and we all have rights. Employers who normally pay for healthcare should go with plans that have only top quality providers in their network. This can be determined at such time as when the HMO paperwork is first examined. Go to the provider directory and find the doctors you would likely go to. Select a few, maybe 10 and then go to any number of places on the web that check doctor credentials and any such involvement in litigation. This will be the first step in determining the value of your HMO.

The fact is that HMO's are necessary evils. They were created exactly with the same thing in mind as was insurance companies...making money. We can hold them liable for allowing us to go to doctors who make mistakes, which is sadly sometimes just bad and blind luck, or we can hold the doctors themselves liable. If you do one, then you must accept the HMO terms...to do the other you must pay your own out of pocket expenses and choose the provider based on your personal experience.

There is no guarantee either way.

I can appreciate what GWB is doing to reduce litigation expenses...but it really ticks me off that now there is further difficulty in holding the red tape makers liable for error. Especially when people are still able to bring class action suits against big tobacco companies for "selling them harmful and addictive substances". Why pick on medical failiures and victims and yet allow addicts to sue their dealers? What is frivilous about wanting the law to protect those who are already victims of circumstance?

 

[Warik]

Further, the APPOINTED PRESIDENT, said that he wants the independent review committee that would review claims before they could be sued upon----to be appointed by the insurance companies themselves. He would also cap damages to a mere 500,000

Absolutely *WRONG*. MORE leftist propoganda! The "APPOINTED PRESIDENT" (APPOINTED BY THE VOTES OF THE CITZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) wants to cap EXTRA damages at $500,000. Meaning that you WOULD be able to sue for the cost of your damages, PLUS an additional $500,000. That's more than enough. Lefists, on the other hand, want to cap it at something absurd like $5,000,000. Imagine, someone gets diarhea or something because of poor health care and they try to sue for $5,000,000.

Of course, RyanH prefers government controlled healthcare so my argument is meaningless I'm sure.

-Warik

 

[Warik]

No response? So ez. Your hopes and dreams of socialized healthcare will never come true.

You realize that under socialized healthcare, it would actually be a CRIME to go to a PRIVATE DOCTOR? Imagine that! Going to prison for being concerned about your health!

Why are you so concerned with having to be able to sue your HMO? Just get a private doctor. I'm sure you can afford it. Why would you want to be stuck in the worst HMO - the Federal Government - and be a criminal for making an individual choice?

Individual choice? Lol... that's so... free. There's a civilization for you, RyanH, it's called "The Borg Collective."

-Warik