How do the uninsured have their babies delivered?

[DBowling]

I couldnt imagine this being an inexpensive ordeal. I have never seen a hospital bill, so im not sure what factors contribute most to the total cost.

[Brainwalter]

Bathtub

[Roan]

EMTALA......www.emtala.com

[peachy]

either other medical insurance payers end up covering it or medicaid...and usually they get up to 90 days medical tx on them and thier child for up to 90 days after (depending on the state i guess)

[HDPM]

Welfare. In my state 40% of the births are paid for by medicaid. Obviously I am bitter about subsidizing this stuff. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[LALDAAS]

On our mother [censored] dime!

[BusterStacks]

My ex's old roommate did not have insurance when she had her kid. She was left with (I think) around 12k in medical bills that eventually went to collections. They would show up at her work and stuff, and she was a waitress. Not cool.

[HDPM]

Not cool that she had a kid when she couldn't afford one? Or not cool that she stiffed professionals out of a legitimate bill?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Not cool that she had a kid when she couldn't afford one? Or not cool that she stiffed professionals out of a legitimate bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both maybe?

[BusterStacks]

Meh, I don't care either way. The whole situation was not cool. Feel bad for whoever you choose.

[2planka]

Slightly OT, but I heard of a woman giving birth on an airplane. Geez. It's bad enough when someone drops ass on a flight. Can't imagine the funk in that cabin.

[Matt Flynn]

they go to the ER. the ER has to treat them. the bill runs $2K if you have insurance. if you don't, the hospital bills you whatever they want, often over twice that. if you can't pay, they dump you to collections. your credit is screwed. if you have some money you declare bankruptcy. if you don't have money you just get the pleasure of knowing the system got you good.

suprised at those getting all libertarian about how only rich people should have kids. perhaps the better question is why does it cost so much.

[HDPM]

It costs a lot because people want good care and we have enough technology to provide good care. It didn't cost much when women would drop a kid in the cave and then go gathering more roots and grubs to eat. Hospitals and medicine are better. So it costs more. Why does a prime steak in a fancy restaurant cost more than trapping a pigeon and eating it raw?

[LALDAAS]

I dont understand how niether the father or the mother are uninsured. how much is health insurance? I wouldn't know. I have always been covered.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Or not cool that she stiffed professionals out of a legitimate bill?

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a [censored] break. How is $12,000 for child-birth a legitimate? Is it to pay for the Doctor's wage? Perhaps the nurses? Perhaps it's the monitoring equipment used, the drugs administered or the rent for the room?

Oh wait, no, that's right, it's the [censored] corrupt medical industry purposely [censored] over uninsured individuals because those people are too poor to fight back.

[jakethebake]

I'd submit that if you have a baby when you're uninsured the doctor should get to keep the baby until the bill is paid off.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
suprised at those getting all libertarian about how only rich people should have kids. perhaps the better question is why does it cost so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you using libertarian as a bad word? It's libertarians who are questioning the perverted government policy and regulation that created this overpriced convoluted mess. Contrary to popular FUD, libertarians are not "rich people" out to screw everyone else.

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
Give me a [censored] break. How is $12,000 for child-birth a legitimate?

[/ QUOTE ]

$12k? Our first baby was 6 weeks premature, but very healthy. Although we have coverage, we do see the bill. $30k. Thats 1000 freaking big bets at $15/$30. A family member had bunyons removed. 1166 big bets.

Very nice.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
A family member had bunyons removed. 1166 big bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any way this is true. $35K for bunyon removal?

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps the better question is why does it cost so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

People witout health insurance have options:

1. Have the kid at home - it's a natural process that is rarely complicated. Doctors are not necessary for childbirth. More often than not, it's the doctors who complicate things, particularly in the US.

2. Medicaid - get most of the bill paid for by gov. aid. FYI, less than 1% of our tax dollars go to welfare programs. Much more of our tax dollars go to business subsidies and the bulk of our taxes go to pay for the war.

3. Pay it later - go to the ER and pay the bill later.

4. Move to a country with universal health care and have the baby there.

-Otis

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A family member had bunyons removed. 1166 big bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any way this is true. $35K for bunyon removal?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was shocked myself and wouldn't have believed it had I not seen it.

A bunionectomy is actually not the simplest of procedures. As it was explained to me, they have a relatively small time window to put the patient under, drain the blood from the feet, cut the bone in half, line it up, screw it together, then bring back the blood.

The total cost included both feet, the hospital stay, crutches/walker, special boots, and a physical therapist who came into the hospital room and gave the "you can do it. fight through the pain" lecture.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Medicaid - get most of the bill paid for by gov. aid. FYI, less than 1% of our tax dollars go to welfare programs. Much more of our tax dollars go to business subsidies and the bulk of our taxes go to pay for the war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Social security, medicaid, and medicare make up about 45% of federal spending - more than anything else. military and security, more like 20%. "the war" is about 3-4% (85 billion of 2 trillion).

note that state/local governments spend nearly zero on the military, and outspend the federal government on soft budget items like charity, medicare, education, etc. military is not even close to making up the "bulk" of your tax bill.

not sure what exactly you mean by business subsidies.


peace bro

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. Medicaid - get most of the bill paid for by gov. aid. FYI, less than 1% of our tax dollars go to welfare programs. Much more of our tax dollars go to business subsidies and the bulk of our taxes go to pay for the war.


[/ QUOTE ]

Social security, medicaid, and medicare make up about 45% of federal spending - more than anything else. military and security, more like 20%. "the war" is about 3-4% (85 billion of 2 trillion).

note that state/local governments spend nearly zero on the military, and outspend the federal government on soft budget items like charity, medicare, education, etc. military is not even close to making up the "bulk" of your tax bill.

not sure what exactly you mean by business subsidies.


peace bro

[/ QUOTE ]

Social security and medicare are not considered welfare in most of the studies I see.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2005/taxday05.html looks about right (first link off a google search)

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
they go to the ER. the ER has to treat them. the bill runs $2K if you have insurance. if you don't, the hospital bills you whatever they want, often over twice that. if you can't pay, they dump you to collections. your credit is screwed. if you have some money you declare bankruptcy. if you don't have money you just get the pleasure of knowing the system got you good.

suprised at those getting all libertarian about how only rich people should have kids. perhaps the better question is why does it cost so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of libertarians are basically Republicans by another name.

[Blarg]

Coathangers.

Seriously though, lots of people have babies at home. And a lot of the underclass doesn't care about things like hospital bills anyway, because they know they'll never pay them and have no intention of paying them. Which isn't entirely their fault; if you don't have the money, you don't have it, period. And it doesn't help if the bill is thousands of dollars for an overnight or two-day stay.

We have lots of poor immigrants coming over specifically to California hospitals to have their babies become American citizens by birth. Whether they can pay for it or not couldn't be further from their minds. I can see why.

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Have the kid at home - it's a natural process that is rarely complicated. Doctors are not necessary for childbirth. More often than not, it's the doctors who complicate things, particularly in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you [censored] kidding me?

[Blarg]

Doctors in the U.S. give by far the highest percentage of ceasarian sections in the world. Something like three times as many as in France and European countries.

It's for insurance and legal purposes, not for medical reasons. The wombs aren't any different over here.

[bennyk]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont understand how niether the father or the mother are uninsured. how much is health insurance? I wouldn't know. I have always been covered.

[/ QUOTE ]

i pay for health insurance and it's $125/month

this is through a well-known company for the self-employed, and the coverage is pretty comprehensive.

i am very healthy physically and i have it mostly for if i crash on my bike or skis.

for a woman or a guy older than me, i think it would be more expensive.

bk

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of libertarians are basically Republicans by another name.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an absolutely idiotic statement.

[DBowling]

thanks for the responses guys, thats what i thought.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for the responses guys, thats what i thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

29 dissenting replies, half of them off topic or rants, and this is how he ends the thread. Brilliant!

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Have the kid at home - it's a natural process that is rarely complicated. Doctors are not necessary for childbirth. More often than not, it's the doctors who complicate things, particularly in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you [censored] kidding me?

[/ QUOTE ]

If doctors are necessary for healthy childbirth, why is it that the poorest countries - with the fewest doctors - have the fastest population growth?

The things that kill babies (or their mothers) in those countries are things like:
- lack of clean water
- lack of food
- lack of education regarding hygiene

NOT lack of hospital birthing facilities. Get real.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]

Social security, medicaid, and medicare make up about 45% of federal spending - more than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please cite your source(s)?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of libertarians are basically Republicans by another name.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an absolutely idiotic statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody ever asked you to like the truth.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of libertarians are basically Republicans by another name.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an absolutely idiotic statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody ever asked you to like the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you belive this you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But I won't argue it anymore here. I'll let idiots like you debate this in the politics forum.

[Blarg]

Your contribution has been so sterling that you are certainly in a position to call someone else an idiot.

Again, whether you agree with or like the truth couldn't possibly be less relevant. It's about as relevant as your slinging insults, and about as interesting.

[InchoateHand]

With their vagina, mostly.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Social security, medicaid, and medicare make up about 45% of federal spending - more than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please cite your source(s)?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/index.html

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

Social security and medicare are not considered welfare in most of the studies I see.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2005/taxday05.html looks about right (first link off a google search)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're getting "welfare" from the federal government it's usually through these programs. I don't want to argue semantics, but these are income redistribution schemes for people in need, call it what you want. My real point was it's clearly more than the originally claimed "less than 1%".

I'm not sure what you mean by "looks about right". what looks right? did something I say look wrong?

I guess I just don't get your point.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Can you please cite your source(s)?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/index.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing on that page supports your claim.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Can you please cite your source(s)?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/index.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing on that page supports your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]


you can click on the highlighted text thingies and get more info.



okay I'm just being a smartass, which claim in particular are you concerned about.

this is the actual budget, so it's all in here....



Edit: I see the actual request now, looking....

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Social security, medicaid, and medicare make up about 45% of federal spending - more than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please cite your source(s)?

[/ QUOTE ]

table S-10 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html)

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Social security and medicare are not considered welfare in most of the studies I see.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2005/taxday05.html looks about right (first link off a google search)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're getting "welfare" from the federal government it's usually through these programs. I don't want to argue semantics, but these are income redistribution schemes for people in need, call it what you want. My real point was it's clearly more than the originally claimed "less than 1%".

I'm not sure what you mean by "looks about right". what looks right? did something I say look wrong?

I guess I just don't get your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was refering to the numbers on that site. But yes, your statement that social security is welfare is just wrong. Wellfare is a specific program, not some general term for income redistribution. Social security is a really crappy annuity that the federal government forces you to buy into.


If you are just against income redistribution, there are far worse abuses(ie giving money to people that need it less) than welfare. For example off the top of my head: the home mortage deduction, hope scholarship tax credit, lifetime learning credit, 401k, IRAs, child care credit, student interest deduction, and so on.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Social security and medicare are not considered welfare in most of the studies I see.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2005/taxday05.html looks about right (first link off a google search)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're getting "welfare" from the federal government it's usually through these programs. I don't want to argue semantics, but these are income redistribution schemes for people in need, call it what you want. My real point was it's clearly more than the originally claimed "less than 1%".

I'm not sure what you mean by "looks about right". what looks right? did something I say look wrong?

I guess I just don't get your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was refering to the numbers on that site. But yes, your statement that social security is welfare is just wrong. Wellfare is a specific program, not some general term for income redistribution. Social security is a really crappy annuity that the federal government forces you to buy into.


If you are just against income redistribution, there are far worse abuses(ie giving money to people that need it less) than welfare. For example off the top of my head: the home mortage deduction, hope scholarship tax credit, lifetime learning credit, 401k, IRAs, child care credit, student interest deduction, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get you bro

I'm not sure you really know what welfare means. It really is an actual word.

There's a lot more to social security than you think there is. It's not just retirement payments.


edit: i just read this. I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm a little stoned is all.

[EliteNinja]

Canada.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Have the kid at home - it's a natural process that is rarely complicated. Doctors are not necessary for childbirth. More often than not, it's the doctors who complicate things, particularly in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you [censored] kidding me?

[/ QUOTE ]

If doctors are necessary for healthy childbirth, why is it that the poorest countries - with the fewest doctors - have the fastest population growth?

The things that kill babies (or their mothers) in those countries are things like:
- lack of clean water
- lack of food
- lack of education regarding hygiene

NOT lack of hospital birthing facilities. Get real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is idiotic. Population is rising in these poor countries because there is no birth control and because more children means more people to work in the fields and support the family. The % of babies born healthy in these countries is far worse than the U.S.

Next time your wife has a breech birth enjoy your home birth while your baby dies. Moran.

Of course, the U.S. has worse rates than most industrialized nations due to the problem with healthcare and insurance in the poor and underserved, but that is a seaparate issue.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Social security and medicare are not considered welfare in most of the studies I see.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxday2005/taxday05.html looks about right (first link off a google search)

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're getting "welfare" from the federal government it's usually through these programs. I don't want to argue semantics, but these are income redistribution schemes for people in need, call it what you want. My real point was it's clearly more than the originally claimed "less than 1%".

I'm not sure what you mean by "looks about right". what looks right? did something I say look wrong?

I guess I just don't get your point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was refering to the numbers on that site. But yes, your statement that social security is welfare is just wrong. Wellfare is a specific program, not some general term for income redistribution. Social security is a really crappy annuity that the federal government forces you to buy into.


If you are just against income redistribution, there are far worse abuses(ie giving money to people that need it less) than welfare. For example off the top of my head: the home mortage deduction, hope scholarship tax credit, lifetime learning credit, 401k, IRAs, child care credit, student interest deduction, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really get you bro

I'm not sure you really know what welfare means. It really is an actual word.

There's a lot more to social security than you think there is. It's not just retirement payments.


edit: i just read this. I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm a little stoned is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using the definition of welfare used during all the debates on welfare reform. Which one are you using?

My list was just to point out that a student who gets a Stafford loan (ie the government subdizing the student with deferred interest and lower rates) is just as much a receiptant of state aid as the single mother who gets a check from AFDC. When you want to complain about welfare, think of how many other programs that you might support fall into that same category. Do public schools fall into the welfare category? Do special interest deductions (mortage, student interest, kids,..)? Charity Tax deductions (if you want to support a religion, why should I have to pay for it?)? And so on.

If you want to get back the original discussion, medical pricing is just insane. Everyone gets charged different rates and those rates are only losely linked to the cost of the service. It is also one area of the economy were cost effectiveness doesn't really matter.

[Matt Flynn]

costs me $849/monh for my family.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suprised at those getting all libertarian about how only rich people should have kids. perhaps the better question is why does it cost so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you using libertarian as a bad word? It's libertarians who are questioning the perverted government policy and regulation that created this overpriced convoluted mess. Contrary to popular FUD, libertarians are not "rich people" out to screw everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with what you are saying. however there is a strong vein of blaming the poor for being poor in libertarianism. bad crap happens to everyone, and i do not want to be one illness away from being homeless.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]


Agreed.

People witout health insurance have options:

1. Have the kid at home - it's a natural process that is rarely complicated. Doctors are not necessary for childbirth. More often than not, it's the doctors who complicate things, particularly in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry you are wrong. And your statement is dangerous. The infant AND maternal mortality rates with delivery in a hospital is a small fraction of what it is at home, midwife or no. Obstetrics saves a lot of lives. You can criticize the profession for being slow to adapt respect for mothers (and fathers), for controlling the process in unnecessary ways, and for using ridiculous drugs like Stadol, but saying childbirth is safer at home is no different from saying seatbelts endanger people. A lot of people may believe it, but it is still bullshit. Put your own babies at risk if you want to live in fantasy world but don't encourage others.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Medicaid - get most of the bill paid for by gov. aid. FYI, less than 1% of our tax dollars go to welfare programs. Much more of our tax dollars go to business subsidies and the bulk of our taxes go to pay for the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

2. More than 1% of taxes go to Medicaid.

[Matt Flynn]

doctors make no difference in over 90% of deliveries. however the stakes are too high to ignore the remainder.

[Matt Flynn]

you will change your mind when you have one.

[Matt Flynn]

about half what you pay is direct bureaucracy and indirect legal and insurance costs, plus insurance and pharma profits and noncritical expenditures.

about 40% of my overhead can be directly attributed to bureaucracy costs from government, insurance companies and as a side effect of the legal industry.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
suprised at those getting all libertarian about how only rich people should have kids. perhaps the better question is why does it cost so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you using libertarian as a bad word? It's libertarians who are questioning the perverted government policy and regulation that created this overpriced convoluted mess. Contrary to popular FUD, libertarians are not "rich people" out to screw everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with what you are saying. however there is a strong vein of blaming the poor for being poor in libertarianism. bad crap happens to everyone, and i do not want to be one illness away from being homeless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

On a related note: most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the U.S.: medical bills.

[BusterStacks]

I blame the poor for being poor and also think poor people should not have children. Is that bad?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You go to an ER.

Federal law prohibits hospitals from refusing to treat women in labor or the critically ill. Hospitals buy insurance to cover these losses.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]



Yup.

On a related note: most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the U.S.: medical bills.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/heriot200502110735.asp
Summation: Some people go bankrupt because of medical emergencies. Most don't and the medical cost is just part of the problem.

[Talk2BigSteve]

You can call me hateful if you want, but I think we as taxpayer should fund 100% abortion clinics, I think all birth control should be free as well, and not a dime for birth. I think anyone who is pregnant should have to have a credit check run, as well as a background check on their education and be tested to see if they have hopes of gainful employment. I also think that we shouldn'r have to pay for daycare. If you want to have a kid then after he/she is born you have to go back to work and pay the bill, daycare, and your free time will be spent in sex education training and 500 hours of community service taking your child to local high schools and telling young girls how "great" your life is with kids and bills and no freedoms. I am sick of having to pay huge bills including high education taxes when I am not populating this state and have no kids and will never have kids in the school system.

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Blarg]

The most important thing seems to me to be not whether most bankruptcies are caused by medical problems, but that so many are. Clearly it's quite a big problem.

[david050173]

[ QUOTE ]
The most important thing seems to me to be not whether most bankruptcies are caused by medical problems, but that so many are. Clearly it's quite a big problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the article again but I thought less than 15% of the bankruptcy were mainly due to medical problems which doesn't seem like a huge problem. I would argue that medical bills are one of the few good reasons for a bankruptcy. I would much rather see people declaring bankruptcy because of illness (ie a quasirandom event) instead of poor financial planning.

[TStoneMBD]

No Buster, this is actually a brilliant observation! The rich can have children but the poor people cannot. Eventually, the poor people will become extinct and everyone in the country will have an abundance of wealth! If the government gradually raises the bar on who is allowed to have children, only the predecessors of Bill Gates will survive.

Brilliant!

[Matt Flynn]

yes.

[Blarg]

Bankruptcy has a very positive function in society, too. A financially crippled person isn't productive, and bankruptcy allows for the risk taking that the American system is all about. One of the main reasons our country has so much innovation is that people are not permanently punished for taking a chance on new ideas, new inventions, new businesses.

Other countries have tried different things, like debtor's prisons, on the theory that no matter how unproductive someone is, it's better to have them producing nothing or next to nothing than taking any more chances.

There's obviously a productive middle ground somewhere between debtor's prison and bankruptcy being impossibly easy, but I'm not sure at all that at present our country is moving in the right direction along that line.

Seriously, if we wanted people to not go into bankruptcy as often, besides medical concerns, we could stop subsidizing unproductive industries, having regressive taxes, allowing usurious credit card rates, having no-bid contracts from the state to the federal level, and racking up massive government debt that requires ever more taxation to pay for. Tightening the screws on bankruptcy law is not going to pull our country out of any real trouble, and bankruptcy problems weren't getting our country into serious problems in the first place. Tightening the screws on the broke and in trouble isn't going to get us anywhere, just punish a lot of people already in a lot of trouble.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
I blame the poor for being poor and also think poor people should not have children. Is that bad?


[/ QUOTE ]

Dumbest post ever.

I could wax poetically for hours about how wrong this is...and how given the 1st worlds demographic state that the marginal costs of insuring a newborn are more than outpaced by the long term economic benefits of another healthy worker in the workforce for 50 yrs.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
about half what you pay is direct bureaucracy and indirect legal and insurance costs, plus insurance and pharma profits and noncritical expenditures.

about 40% of my overhead can be directly attributed to bureaucracy costs from government, insurance companies and as a side effect of the legal industry.

[/ QUOTE ]


OK. But many other industries have crippling costs associated with regulation or government meddling. The medical profession is probably worse in this regard, but the answer is to get government out of the market. You also know that the legal profession is much less responsible for increased costs than government medding. And in a perfect system the worst doctors would bear the cost of malpractice. Obviously the system isn't perfect. But I agree that costs are too high because of certain factors. Which is why I would eliminate medicare and medicaid and maybe the FDA. And if personal income taxes were 5-10% max as they should be, doctors (and everybody else who actually earns money)could take more home. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd submit that if you have a baby when you're uninsured the doctor should get to keep the baby until the bill is paid off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

People should not be allowed to have children if they can't afford give that child proper support.

No wait,I take it back - poor people can have all the children they want - it's their right. But as soon as you come to the state for assistance - the state has the right to take that child and put them in a proper home.

DONT HAVE KIDS IF YOU NEED TO GO ON WELFARE TO SUPPORT THEM!!!!!!

Motherfuc*ers.