• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Illegal Immigration simply cannot be tolerated any longer.

I agree that something must br done about our broken immigration system. Fix this problem once and for all. We shouldn't hate illegal immigrants. Some of them are hard working people. Let's instead hate the act of illegal immigration. And let's hope our government acts soon.

It matters very little that they work hard. Simple fact, they are illegal, period. If they are poor, they suck up resources. Many do not want to be American, they simply want the free ride.

Not all of them, but plenty, to be sure.

Bob Maxey
 
And you're the expert on .. what now?

Apparently, some people have spent most of their lives with their heads stuck in the sand. Look around dude, Engineers, doctors, and highly qualified people are imported to U.S by the U.S companies & govt - due to the Lack of such skills here. The Green card is handed to them at the airport, on arrival. That's not illegal, that is serving the U.S with the skills they have...:rolleyes:, to fulfill the NEED - which then contributes to the success of our Nation.

I'm guessing a lot of illegals are reading these forums; sorry if I hurt your feelings.

There's only 2 choices we have (IMHO). Either we close the borders, or let 'em open all the way... heck, let every illegal/terrorist come, right? That would make some of you very happy... My only hope is, if the later is gonna happen, they inform us first. At least some of us can stock up on ammo! ..hee..hee..lol.

Perhaps you are right. Then again, if the government or a company imports them, they are not here illegally, are they? Illegal aliens are a whole different thing. They are not here legally. I am not sore how many people arrive here legally, but I am betting the number is far smaller than those that come here illegally.

As for lack of skills as being the reason people are imported, perhaps you are right. Then again, we are America and we are very good at becoming the best at whatever we try to accomplish. Perhaps with a little less government and a renewed can do attitude, we won't require those experts you claim we import.

We have the best medical system on the planet, we are brilliant at innovation, and we do not suffer from a lack of qualified people to solve whatever needs solving. Perhaps we are importing people for reasons other than their superior skills and talents?

Bob Maxey - 100% Legal and Lovin' it
 
You seem to be very racist. Your argument was against Mexicans, not illegal immigrants, you never mentioned immigration. Stop being a xenophobe and grow up.

Actually, his comments were not racist. One can expect that if you live in a border state, the vast majority of illegals will be Mexican. Hell, I live in Utah and the majority of illegals are from Mexico.

Facts are not, by the way, neither racist or not racist; they are simply the truth regardless of how much you do not like them.

Bob Maxey
 
I think you are correct to a point: It might not be 99.99999999...% but it is indeed a big percent.

Here are a few ideas for everyone to quote as they mightily complain about my racism and Un-Americanism (Not you specifically WADude)

We can't gather "them" all up and ship "them" all home. To difficult and unreasonable. So, we do this:

If you knowingly give jobs to illegals, you pay huge fines. Not huge in a "It will be tough, but I think we'll manage to pay it" sort of way, but a "Were totally screwed; totally, totally, totally" sort of way.

I love the word 'Draconian.'

House an illegal, and draconian punishment. Huge fines, jail, perhaps loss of property if found guilty and you can't pay. Perhaps the IRS will help; they take property every day from those that fail to pay; lets create thousands of new collection jobs.

Sanctuary cities: Draconian, Draconian, Draconian. They loose government money and the masterminds in office that allow it to happen, well, perhaps a perp walk to a jail to await years of legal problems and ultimately, a little jail time comes to mind.

Toss a Governor, city manager, or whatever in jail and sanctuary cities go away.

When we catch illegals, they go to a holding cell; Gitmo Style comes to mind. They get a speedy trial, sent back home, and they loose their "Right" to come back to the United States of America. Trials can be fast; it is certainly clear that you are either here legally or illegally.

We end the Title 8 (?) laws. If a child is born here to illegal parents, well, the family will need three seats on the bus back to holding or whatever place they escaped to start their new lives as criminals in the US of A.

The great thing is, we only need a few years of government doing this and eventually, people will get it that the government is no linger screwing around. They mean what we say, and we will suffer greatly if we deal with any illegals.

To be fair, we adopt the same rules and laws that exist in Mexico, concerning illegal immigration. Read the Mexican laws and I am not so unreasonably crazy.

Bob "The Warden For a New America" Maxey

Mostly agree. I think that business owners, CEO's etcetera should face jail time for hiring illegals as well.
 

Actually, quite near it on the quality of care.

Every comparison I've read that puts the US lower in the list does so because there is no UNIVERSAL health care.

That's an entirely different thing.

We get quality care, just not everyone can afford the best quality care
 
I'm probably the most liberal left thinking person on this board, but I do like some of what you are saying Bob Maxey.

I hate the term "illegals," so I really hate reading your posts, but a few posts up you accurately described my feelings. If the government or heck, just the common person wants to stop illegal immigration, punish those that hire the immigrants that are coming into this country illegally. The government can do it by imposing VERY LARGE fines to companies, such as Wal-Mart that has been caught hiring those that are in the country illegally. Not a tiny fine, which would be 1million dollars to Wal-Mart, but maybe 1billion (i know that would never happen).

The "regular" person can try to do their part by boycotting such companies. Many times the typical response to why people don't like illegal immigrants is "they take our jobs." Well, someone is hiring them. Don't be angry at the person that wants a job, and is willing to do it. Be angry at the company that is doing the hiring, and keeping the jobs away from "legal" americans.

The problem with this is that the Repubs and even the Teapartiers would have a fit if one of their "american corporations" was fined a huge amount or boycotted. These huge companies can do no wrong in their eyes. It is capitalism at its greatest: being cut throat, and willing to do whatever it takes to get to the top, even if it means hiring illegal immigrants.

And I can hear what they would say to the idea of a "private" person hiring an illegal immigrant to do, say yard work (like lou dobbs): "why should the government tell me who i can or can't hire? its my property, and i'll do whatever i want on it, and hire whomever i want to work on it"
 
Actually, quite near it on the quality of care.

Every comparison I've read that puts the US lower in the list does so because there is no UNIVERSAL health care.

That's an entirely different thing.

We get quality care, just not everyone can afford the best quality care
I dont doubt the quality of your doctors but, I'm fairly sure most WEU counties have a better system.

Personally, I think in the future we will have (almost)solely government-run healthcare and we will be LOLing at how we could ever have had a two-teir system.
But not in <50 years...

Anyway, very OT :eek:
 
The government can do it by imposing VERY LARGE fines to companies, such as Wal-Mart that has been caught hiring those that are in the country illegally. Not a tiny fine, which would be 1million dollars to Wal-Mart, but maybe 1billion (i know that would never happen).

Just for accuracy sake... Wal-Mart was not caught hiring illegal workers. They were caught employing a contractor, and being aware that the contract employed illegal workers.

There's a distinction, not a huge distinction, but a distinction.

The "regular" person can try to do their part by boycotting such companies. Many times the typical response to why people don't like illegal immigrants is "they take our jobs." Well, someone is hiring them. Don't be angry at the person that wants a job, and is willing to do it. Be angry at the company that is doing the hiring, and keeping the jobs away from "legal" americans.

Personally, I'm angry at both. The person breaking the law, and the people giving them reason to.

The problem with this is that the Repubs and even the Teapartiers would have a fit if one of their "american corporations" was fined a huge amount or boycotted.

Actually, my personal belief is that the real problem is the partisanship that has arisen around the issue (Repubs... etc..).

Christian Conservatives boycott businesses all the time for different issues. Illegal immigration would just be one of those issues.

These huge companies can do no wrong in their eyes.

Which is a great Democratic talking point.

However, the reality is that Christian Conservatives have called for boycotts of Ford, Disney, Pepsi, and even Wal-Mart. And that was a short list that took about 5 seconds to look up on Google.

You should really look past your partisanship, and look across the aisle as to how the others really feel, instead of what Democratic politicians TELL you they feel.

And I can hear what they would say to the idea of a "private" person hiring an illegal immigrant to do, say yard work (like lou dobbs): "why should the government tell me who i can or can't hire? its my property, and i'll do whatever i want on it, and hire whomever i want to work on it"

Just a point of contention here, Lou Dobbs never employed illegal "aliens". He employed contractors and companies for different issues, and those companies and contractors hired illegal aliens.

Is it YOUR contention that Lou Dobbs should have looked through the payroll documents for every employee of every contractor/company he hired?

Or is it YOUR contention that he should look at who's doing the work, and determine who he thinks is an illegal "alien" and ask the contractor/company to verify their immigration status?

Now for people/companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants... I advocate jail time. I really do. Jail time that doubles each time you are caught.

3 months for the first time. 6 months for the second time. 1 year for the third time. 2 years for the fourth time.

Being caught knowingly employing 50 illegals would count as being caught 1 time.


These are my views on the matter.
 
I dont doubt the quality of your doctors but, I'm fairly sure most WEU counties have a better system.

What do you base that on? Other than your assumption that you have a better system?

Personally, I think in the future we will have (almost)solely government-run healthcare and we will be LOLing at how we could ever have had a two-teir system.
But not in <50 years...

Look at the other things your government provides. Look at the quality of work that they provide, and then determine if you want THEM providing your health care as well.
 
What do you base that on? Other than your assumption that you have a better system?
I never said we all have a better system
In Ireland we have a horrible two-teir system, where you are stuck on an endless waiting list if you have money, stemming from the fact we were the third poorest country in the Western Europe not too long ago...

Take a look at other countries healthcare systems; France's, UK's, Netherlands (Its Private, so you'll lurv it ;)) and you will see they are superior
 
I never said we all have a better system
In Ireland we have a horrible two-teir system, where you are stuck on an endless waiting list if you have money, stemming from the fact we were the third poorest country in the Western Europe not too long ago...

Take a look at other countries healthcare systems; France's, UK's, Netherlands (Its Private, so you'll lurv it ;)) and you will see they are superior

You still haven't detailed why you find it "superior" to the US system.

I don't think that you can, to be honest.
 
You still haven't detailed why you find it "superior" to the US system.

I don't think that you can, to be honest.
Example:
Sicko? The truth about the US healthcare system - Americas, World - The Independent

www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html
Having the system run by for-profit insurance companies turns out to be inefficient and expensive as well as dehumanising. America spends more than twice as much per capita on health care as France, and almost two and a half times as much as Britain. And yet it falls down in almost every key indicator of public health, starting, perhaps, most shockingly, with infant mortality, which is 36 per cent higher than in Britain.
 

A few key notes:
1) finding random examples (i.e. sicko) is not particularly impressive.
2) the WHO ranking is from 2000. We're in 2010. Additionally, the WHO ranking is incredibly flawed. It uses factors such as "fiscal fairness", "responsiveness distribution", "responsiveness" (which includes things like picking your doctors, the quality of linens, and other amenities) in determining the quality of health care. It also uses "health distribution" as a measure. If you happen to have a good quality of care everywhere, and I had excellent in most places but good in a few, you would rank higher than me as a result of this measure.
3) The U.S. does poorly on some measures, and very good on others. The U.S. is particularly good with diseases such as cancer, and not only survival rates, but also length/quality of life in the U.S. with cancer is substantially better than in the UK.

It's all about your approach. This is also the wrong thread for this discussion. There is a thread for it, though!
 
A few key notes:
1) finding random examples (i.e. sicko) is not particularly impressive.
I dont like random examples either
You saw my quote, links were to backup

2) the WHO ranking is from 2000. We're in 2010. Additionally, the WHO ranking is incredibly flawed. It uses factors such as "fiscal fairness", "responsiveness distribution", "responsiveness" (which includes things like picking your doctors, the quality of linens, and other amenities) in determining the quality of health care. It also uses "health distribution" as a measure. If you happen to have a good quality of care everywhere, and I had excellent in most places but good in a few, you would rank higher than me as a result of this measure.
I dont understand what you are saying
They give higher mark for worse care?

And what has changed between 2000-2010?

Most of what you said there makes no sense... sorry :(

3) The U.S. does poorly on some measures, and very good on others. The U.S. is particularly good with diseases such as cancer, and not only survival rates, but also length/quality of life in the U.S. with cancer is substantially better than in the UK.
AFAICR, UK has better life expectancy than US, despite being poorer (care to prove me wrong, this is Atlas derived)

It's all about your approach. This is also the wrong thread for this discussion. There is a thread for it, though!
Agree, this is the wrong place
Mods please move posts
 
I dont understand what you are saying
They give higher mark for worse care?

And what has changed between 2000-2010?

Most of what you said there makes no sense... sorry :(
Unfortunately, that's the WHO ranking system -- it doesn't make sense. I'll give an example:
If there is a regional variation in the quality of your care, you will rank worse on 25% (might only have been 12.5%, don't recall offhand) of what contributes to your score than someone with no regional variation -- so if my country had 5% better care than you on average, but had regional variation, you would rank substantially higher if you had no regional variation.

This measure is particularly problematic for the U.S., where things like individual municipalities are responsible for planning the location of emergency responders, so you have some cities where the response time is dramatically rapid and others where it is less rapid. Not to mention any time you have a landmass as large as ours compared to another landmass substantially smaller, it's a lot harder to have a flat variation.

Then there is another measure that determines whether everyone spends the same % of their income on health care (this is another 12.5 or 25% of the overall score on the WHO measure). Obviously a socialized medicine system will score better on this than a non-socialized medicine system. Around 65% of your overall WHO score is tangentially related, at best, to the quality of care.

The actual outcomes are only 25% of the overall WHO score. The score also includes 12.5% for the speed of response (a valid measure), and 12.5% for the quality of amenities (linens, etc).

As for what has changed in the last 10 years; a lot has changed. Technology has substantially advanced... not to mention the prevalence of waiting lists for surgery in those socialized medicine countries has gotten a lot more substantial - and longer.
AFAICR, UK has better life expectancy than US, despite being poorer (care to prove me wrong, this is Atlas derived)
Sure, there are plenty of measures where the UK outranks the US. Life expectancy is a poor way to determine quality of care, however. Think about all the things that influence life expectancy: crime (homicide), eating habits (obesity), smoking (lung cancer), stress, etc.

There are also measures where the US outranks the UK. Look at cancer outcomes, as an example. I'll go back to cancer outcomes several times because the UK won't pay for high-cost treatments. Any treatment with a high cost you're at risk in the UK because their system won't pay for it -- period. They essentially determine how much a month of someone's life is worth and if a drug costs more than that per month allowed, then they won't cover the drug. They also don't cover the top-notch asthma drug for kids under age 6 (or was it 12?) because they don't find the improvements over other asthma drugs to be sufficient.

Agree, this is the wrong place
Mods please move posts
Please. :)
 
Fair enough
But could you find a different rating system so?
Also the US spends twice as much as France and 2.5 times as much as the UK per capita
Thats massive
In the period 2000-2010 I suspect the spending levels have risen faster in the US (the UK's has risen too), especially considering Obamacare (I dont like it - if I had to I would vote for it :/)...
 
Fair enough
But could you find a different rating system so?
Also the US spends twice as much as France and 2.5 times as much as the UK per capita
Thats massive
In the period 2000-2010 I suspect the spending levels have risen faster in the US (the UK's has risen too), especially considering Obamacare (I dont like it - if I had to I would vote for it :/)...

The WHO rating system was discontinued in 2000 because it was too much work. For the same reason, I doubt any other rating systems will exist.

Yes, the U.S. spends more per capita than France/UK. Spending levels have almost certainly risen faster in the U.S. -- unfortunately, the UK (as an example) is reliant on it. I'll explain:
There are several drug companies with prominent, brand-name drugs (brand-name here means that they are on patent; in this case, I'm generally referring to biologic drugs, which means they're expensive and frequently oncology [though not always; insulin is an example]). These companies sell their drugs at a loss in the U.K., purely to get revenue. They make a profit on them in the U.S. If the U.S. were to implement a similar system, they would become unavailable in the U.K. However, if they discount the cost, other socialized medicine states seize on that and negotiate for similar discounts. As a result, there are a series of other measures in place that reduce the cost for NICE. (If it's not successful, NICE doesn't pay for it -- for example).

Additionally, physicians (and particularly specialists) make more in the US than in the UK, which drives up costs dramatically. IIRC (and this isn't really data I can cite, since it relies on an analysis we did using Medicare data), Oncology practices in the U.S., only looking at their Medicare patients, with 1-2 practitioners, 2-3 aides and a receptionist were looking at around $4-5M in Medicare revenue. Add in revenue from non-Medicare patients, etc -- the profit is quite large. Since they own their own practice, a lot of it isn't income but instead goes back into the practice -- the practice buys their car and lets them use it, etc. Additionally, the cost of medical education in the U.S. is substantially higher -- docs come out with 100k+ in debt, usually more.

Again, all reliant on the U.S. revenue to be able to sell at those prices and make those deals. Is that the end of the world? No, not really -- I'd rather have a flourishing biopharma industry, honestly.

re: Obamacare - it hasn't increased spending by more than a pittance, and won't for another 2-4 years, depending on the individual provision. Generally speaking, the spending doesn't kick in until 2014 and the industry-specific savings don't kick in until 2012.
 
Yes, the U.S. spends more per capita than France/UK. Spending levels have almost certainly risen faster in the U.S. -- unfortunately, the UK (as an example) is reliant on it. I'll explain:
There are several drug companies with prominent, brand-name drugs (brand-name here means that they are on patent; in this case, I'm generally referring to biologic drugs, which means they're expensive and frequently oncology [though not always; insulin is an example]). These companies sell their drugs at a loss in the U.K., purely to get revenue. They make a profit on them in the U.S. If the U.S. were to implement a similar system, they would become unavailable in the U.K. However, if they discount the cost, other socialized medicine states seize on that and negotiate for similar discounts. As a result, there are a series of other measures in place that reduce the cost for NICE. (If it's not successful, NICE doesn't pay for it -- for example).

Sadly this is one of the major complaints most U.S. consumers have with the U.S. Pharmacological corporations. They essentially "give" their supposedly expensive drugs to other nations while overcharging American consumers for the same medications. Is it any wonder why there is such a thriving prescription drug business in Canadian and Mexican pharmacies near the U.S. border?
 
Sadly this is one of the major complaints most U.S. consumers have with the U.S. Pharmacological corporations. They essentially "give" their supposedly expensive drugs to other nations while overcharging American consumers for the same medications. Is it any wonder why there is such a thriving prescription drug business in Canadian and Mexican pharmacies near the U.S. border?

And it's a perfectly valid complaint. There are a few issues with it, though:
1) They don't actually give their drugs away. They still sell them. The issue is that if they didn't accept a loss, they wouldn't be able to sell the drug. Would that be a better alternative?
2) Buying from Canadian and Mexican pharmacies is a bad idea. There's a reason why the FDA hasn't implemented reimportation, even though they have the authority to -- the FDA can't regulate and guarantee the safety of drugs that are purchased abroad. CA and MX have different regulations and approval pathways.
3) Canada doesn't have drugs sold to it at a loss; it's just that the system there is such that the cost of the drugs is less (because the gov't largely foots the bill). NICE is really the only/largest example of it. Largely because NICE is the strongest single-payer system that handles drugs. And it's willing to say no to proven novel treatments.

But yeah; it sucks that we essentially are paying because other gov'ts are unwilling to pay a fair price for the drug. It happens in other ways, too. If you don't have insurance, you pay a ridiculous price for provider care because of how insurance negotiations occur. If you had insurance, the provider might receive $100 ($20 copay + $80 from insurance company) if the doc was likely. If you don't, it would probably be $300 -- they negotiate down from the normal rates w/ the insurance company. Same is true with hospitals. In some areas, we pay more for insurance because Medicare pays less than cost (hospitals), in other areas, Medicare pays 20-30% over cost to subsidize Medicaid (nursing facilities). etc.
 
And it's a perfectly valid complaint. There are a few issues with it, though:
1) They don't actually give their drugs away. They still sell them. The issue is that if they didn't accept a loss, they wouldn't be able to sell the drug. Would that be a better alternative?
2) Buying from Canadian and Mexican pharmacies is a bad idea. There's a reason why the FDA hasn't implemented reimportation, even though they have the authority to -- the FDA can't regulate and guarantee the safety of drugs that are purchased abroad. CA and MX have different regulations and approval pathways.
3) Canada doesn't have drugs sold to it at a loss; it's just that the system there is such that the cost of the drugs is less (because the gov't largely foots the bill). NICE is really the only/largest example of it. Largely because NICE is the strongest single-payer system that handles drugs. And it's willing to say no to proven novel treatments.

But yeah; it sucks that we essentially are paying because other gov'ts are unwilling to pay a fair price for the drug. It happens in other ways, too. If you don't have insurance, you pay a ridiculous price for provider care because of how insurance negotiations occur. If you had insurance, the provider might receive $100 ($20 copay + $80 from insurance company) if the doc was likely. If you don't, it would probably be $300 -- they negotiate down from the normal rates w/ the insurance company. Same is true with hospitals. In some areas, we pay more for insurance because Medicare pays less than cost (hospitals), in other areas, Medicare pays 20-30% over cost to subsidize Medicaid (nursing facilities). etc.

My head is spinnin :eek:
 

Staffordshire hospital scandal: the hidden story - Telegraph

Telegraph.co.uk said:
Congealed blood was smeared on seats in the patients' waiting area, the lavatory floors stank of urine and grime was encrusted on the sinks used by doctors and nurses. Terry Deighton had never seen anything like it.

Interesting what you can find when you look for a single case to illustrate your point... isn't it?

or 400 - 1200 cases to prove your point.

Telegraph.co.uk said:
Notes he took during his two hour visit described "blood marks one metre from the floor on the glass entrance doors covering an area of 50 square inches." The lavatories were no better. There were puddles of urine and sodden paper on the floor and cigarette ends floating in a bowl. There were no signs displayed in the department urging staff, patients and visitors to wash their hands. These had been vandalised and never replaced.

Telegraph.co.uk said:
Furthermore patients were "dumped" for hours and even days at a time in smaller units without a dedicated nurse to care for them.

Telegraph.co.uk said:
The hospital even used unqualified receptionists to carry out the vital task of triage, in which patients are assessed for priority of care. One patient with an open fracture to the elbow was left for over four hours covered in blood with no pain relief.

Telegraph.co.uk said:
Last August, while patients were dying unnecessarily on their wards the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust nominations and remuneration committee gave Mr Yeates a
 
Staffordshire hospital scandal: the hidden story - Telegraph



Interesting what you can find when you look for a single case to illustrate your point... isn't it?

or 400 - 1200 cases to prove your point.











We can both trade isolated cases all day, but I have to warn you. You aren't likely to find any that turn your stomach like this report did mine.



Again... what evidence to you have that suggests your system is better than that in the US?
Yup horror stories :(
My link to "sicko" was to backup the qutoe


My point is that your healthcare system is suited to the wealthy not the poor
Most healthcare systems will serve you better if you have money, but in the US it is to a ridiculous extent, and the charges for anything and everything is unbelievable.

I agree there are issues with the NHS, but these are usually bad hospital management (no excuse), but the NHS provides a good quality of care (UK is the worlds best place to die) at a reasonable cost (dont tell me doctors wages and medicine prices double the US HC cost)
 
Yup horror stories :(
My link to "sicko" was to backup the qutoe


My point is that your healthcare system is suited to the wealthy not the poor
Most healthcare systems will serve you better if you have money, but in the US it is to a ridiculous extent, and the charges for anything and everything is unbelievable.

I agree there are issues with the NHS, but these are usually bad hospital management (no excuse), but the NHS provides a good quality of care (UK is the worlds best place to die) at a reasonable cost (dont tell me doctors wages and medicine prices double the US HC cost)

I don't believe that the UK is the worlds best place to die. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

As far as cost is concerned; why do you think the cost in the U.S. is higher? doctors (making ~40-75k pounds annually, according to google vs doctors making 1m+ annually), and drugs (costing substantially more, being more available) are two of the largest reasons, but they are far from the only reasons. There's also stuff like the overutilization of expensive diagnostic services (MRI/A, CT, etc), malpractice, and so forth.

The number of different payment systems is also such that a physician office with 2 physicians will frequently need 1, if not 2, payment specialists to ensure that they get paid by all of the appropriate insurance providers.
 
Yup horror stories :(
My link to "sicko" was to backup the qutoe


My point is that your healthcare system is suited to the wealthy not the poor
Most healthcare systems will serve you better if you have money, but in the US it is to a ridiculous extent, and the charges for anything and everything is unbelievable.

Care to back that up with proof?

I agree there are issues with the NHS, but these are usually bad hospital management (no excuse), but the NHS provides a good quality of care (UK is the worlds best place to die) at a reasonable cost

Interesting thought... if we didn't pay what we do for health care, you wouldn't have the level of care you do...

It's kind of like Defense Spending.

We spend big on defense, so all of these other countries don't have to.

Then they complain about how much we spend on defense.

I'm good with lowering how much we pay for health care, and letting other countries pick up their fair share for drug R&D...

Same thing with defense. Let other countries pick up some of the slack. It'll do our economy some good.

(dont tell me doctors wages and medicine prices double the US HC cost)

Why? Something you don't want to hear? Or something you don't think is true?

Don't forget malpractice insurance. Doctors to keep malpractice insurance. Which generally costs more per year than a doctor takes home.

I will say that I like the UK malpractice limitations (from what I understand of them).

I would like to see the same type of system implemented here.

A three panel judge reviews lawsuits before they go to trial.

If the suit is determined to be frivolous, that is a mark against the lawyer. Three frivolous lawsuits and they are disbarred.

Worthy lawsuits go through and the victim compensated, and frivolous lawsuits are prevented, and doctors are protected.

Seems like a good system to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom