Thanks for listening.

[Jesda]

You're 22. Health insurance is $40/mo.

[bigbadberry3]

You're 22. Health insurance is $40/mo.

Bahaha I wish.

[jedimind240]

Mines $50/month, but thats just my premiums and thats also because its tricare (the Governments military health Insurer). Im also 22 and have had a job since i was 15, been in the National Guard here in Indiana since i was 18, i've had my experience with being underinsured and being in an accident and had to pay $3500 for a hospital night stay and 2 weeks worth of rehab for some light wounds. I didn't really have $3500 to pay for those but ended up getting it payed off. My current employer doesn't offer healthcare to me so i have to get it through the national guard, its cheaper because the government subsidizes it, but i still have sorta high out of pocket expenses. Now if i had not payed my medical bills from my hospital stay, the hospital would have to absorb the cost of that, which they do because a lot of people file bankruptcy because of medical bills, in fact its the number 1 reason of bankruptcy where most debt like medical bills get forgiven or reduced. But when the hospital absorbs that cost they spread it to the other clients and the local government so that hospital stays a viable entity to stay in business. When that person pays the fine for not having insurance their paying into the system to pay for the uninsured or underinsured costs to the hospital and governments. They actually do greater harm by not being insured because their is no one to pay for their health costs except you and me. We need a single payer system to lower costs and raise the health in this country.

Every country with a single payer system has a healthier population and lower infant mortality rates.http://www.oecd.org/statisticsdata/0,33 ... 07,00.html There are stats on the powerpoint that show what im talking about. Other countries spend less on health care because they have control of the cost of healthcare. The Unites States Military uses a single payer system for all active duty personnel.

This Bill doesn't go far enough, it adds protection but it needs to give us universal healthcare, Healthcare is a right and not a business.

[AZhitman]

I'm not trying to be boastful but I do not like being called a slacker and the task of finding/paying for health insurance just wasn't welcomed.

BBB, that wasn't intended as a slam. My point is this: You're not OWED anything. Health insurance is NOT a right. You need to find a way to make it happen.

You're very clearly NOT a "slacker". But this concept that somehow 'the gubmint' should pay your bills is absurd.

And that's really what it comes down to: Does the government pay your food bill? I mean, we all NEED food, even more so than healthcare. Does it pay your water bill? I mean, water is the MOST crucial need. Does it pay for your home / shelter?

Why would someone think it's the government's responsibility to pick up the tab for a doctor to take care of you?

And if you DO believe this to be the case, then what do we do about people who don't take measures to take care of themselves? See, now they're costing ME money, and I take issue with that.

So, if I'm partially paying for Big Fat Fatty's healthcare, and he wants to sit home on the couch and eat ice cream, chain smoke and never exercise, I'm gonna want him held accountable, because he's a liability on me and you.

Now, if YOU want to pay for Big Fat Fatty's healthcare out of YOUR pocket, by all means, do so.

[AZhitman]

I didn't really have $3500 to pay for those but ended up getting it payed off.

Nicely done, sir. I salute your integrity.

Healthcare is a right and not a business.

If that were the case, doctors would be issued to each child at birth.

The ONLY rights we have are those endowed upon us by our Maker and those outlined in the Constitution.

Although I disagree, I respect your position - Great post!

p.s. Thanks for your service.

[bigbadberry3]

Sorry about that, sometimes it's difficult to understand what someone is saying in a post. I'm not in favor of the gov paying for everything, but throwing a bone to people of my demographic (college students) or people who are barely getting by in life I'm ok with. I'm not asking for free health care though. For example, I would still be paying insurance under my parents coverage but at a much discounted rate. I don't expect a handout but a coupon is nice.

I think if everyone looked at the government and where they put our tax dollars, everyone could find at least one area where they did not like their money being spent. I'm more at ease however knowing that some of my tax dollars are being put towards making sure others can afford care as needed, whereas I don't like all the handouts we've given to banks deemed "to big to fail." Matter of opinion sometimes.

[smockers83]

Unless it's different in other states, the government already mandates us to have other types of insurance, such as auto insurance. Every vehicle on the road is supposed to be insured. If you aren't, you're fined.

Unfortunately this is all I have time for, this makes me sad

[AZhitman]

Unless it's different in other states, the government already mandates us to have other types of insurance, such as auto insurance.

Key difference: Driving is a privilege. You can live w/o a car.

In other words, if you choose to drive, in order to mitigate financial risk to others, you have to have insurance. Don't want to pay? Don't own a car.

Mandatory health insurance represents an unfunded mandate, and isn't an optional purchase decision based on a "choice" (like car ownership).

BTW, that's a state-by-state issue. Some states don't have mandatory insurance, AFAIK.

[heliochrome85]

im still alive. ive read the thread. eric knows my feelings on this, but i did find this little thing last night. im not sure how it changes the debate, but its worth looking into.

In 1798, President John Adams, signed into law, An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen"http://history.nih.gov/researc...5.pdf

i thought it was interesting because ultimately, President Adams, one of the primary framers of the constitution, saw it fit that the Federal government mandate manditory health insurance for sailors. Based on my limited understanding of legal matters, it would seem that any sort of arguement on whether such an act is constitutional, would have to address this action by Adams. Maybe Obama is as they say, a Socialist, but he is far from America's first.

[AZhitman]

i thought it was interesting because ultimately, President Adams, one of the primary framers of the constitution, saw it fit that the Federal government mandate manditory health insurance for sailors.

That never required them to purchase a product or service from a private company - It was provided as part of their commission.

And to this day, our Armed Forces continue to receive Federally-subsidized medical care (which I agree with).

You had it 3/4 right.

p.s. I've been following your updates on FB... Miss you around here, and I'm proud as crap that you're doing well in school.

[jedimind240]

Regardless of how people feel about what this bill does or does not do. This bill does help fix some things and make some things better, some people feel that some things could be changed. I feel like the non-discremination language based on pre-existing conditions is an absolute Good. Changing the age for people to stay on their parents cheaper insurance is also great. What this does with the education system and eliminating subsidies for private banks to offer student loans that the government has to take over if the loan is defaulted on, is a good thing, it allows for the government to offer lower rate student loans and give more pell grants. These are good, but now that this bill exists it can be changed and tweaked to work for us, thats the beauty of are system. You can hate things this bill does, but not everything is bad, but it can be changed and built upon to help us all in the long run. Don't take away what this bill has the potential to do for us, it has potential to make life better for all citizens. We just have to fix it to work best, and that can happen, just don't take this good and allow it to turn bad. If the mandate to buy insurance doesn't work for us then we fix it, if it works then will we build upon it and make a better and cheaper system.

[AZhitman]

I like your thinking... here's the problem:

You do NOT pass a flawed bill. One of GWB's greatest F-ups is NOT Iraq but 'No Child Left Behind'.

"Fixing" a bill that's already been signed into law is 100x more difficult than just writing it RIGHT in the first place.

Here's my [subliminal] gripe:

What about those of us heavily invested in health insurance companies?

Who pays for the added expense of those extra 5-6 years on the parents' insurance?

See, all these costs get passed on to someone. We've already seen the "free pass" for the same damn people that don't have coverage now, so what's the difference?

I'll tell you: More of it is paid by me and you. And that, my friends, is redistribution of wealth, a concept that's NOT compatible with a free society.

[jedimind240]

No bill is going to be perfect, there are always gonna be critics and skeptics of everything in bills passed by the government. In all honesty no one really knows how this will affect us, unless you can tell what actually happens in the future, then you don't know if this helps or hurts. You can believe it will help or hurt based on facts and figures you see, but support and figures exist for both sides.

And for the question about those heavily invested in insurance companies. Nothing in this debate should be about making dividends instead of saving lives and improving lives, you can disagree, but i believe that to be true. I believe that some people are against entitlement programs for people, but those people are themselves believing they are entitled to make as much money as they can and spend it how they want. No one gave you the right to make money, MONEY IS NOT REAL, the Federal reserve makes money whenever it needs to, all loans are just promises and are intangible.

Its scary to think that you work your entire life for something that in a moment of survival is only good for insulation or burning, you can't eat money, you can't drink it, it won't stop a bear from attacking you. People put to much emphasis on fiber paper printed green.

[smockers83]

Regardless of how people feel about what this bill does or does not do. This bill does help fix some things and make some things better, some people feel that some things could be changed. I feel like the non-discremination language based on pre-existing conditions is an absolute Good. Changing the age for people to stay on their parents cheaper insurance is also great.

Eh, lets start here. Pre-existing conditions to me is a sticky subject. The saying in the insurance industry is that those who need insurance the most look for it, while others who don't think they need it don't. With that being said, I feel that those with pre-existing conditions shouldn't be declined coverage, but they can be charged higher. Here's the logic.

Prior to them having a pre-existing condition, they should have had insurance that they were paying into. This builds up their share of the pool. Then their condition comes about and those funds are there. However, when someone applies for new insurance with a pre-existing condition, they haven't paid into that pool of insurance moneys. This makes them much more costly to the insurance company to cover.

As for children and their parents insurance. Yes, and no. It's not necessarily cheaper. To cover children the age around which they are dropped from their parents coverage, their coverage costs are minimal as people around that age tend to be quite healthy and don't need a lot of coverage. On a person-by-person basis, probably the cheapest demographic is those around the age of being dropped from parental coverage. The younger you are or the older you are, the more costly you become. The reason why it's "cheaper" is because the parent holding the policy pays for much of the coverage on him/her self and gets a discount on additional people in his family. At least, in simple terms.

[smockers83]

And for the question about those heavily invested in insurance companies. Nothing in this debate should be about making dividends instead of saving lives and improving lives, you can disagree, but i believe that to be true. I believe that some people are against entitlement programs for people, but those people are themselves believing they are entitled to make as much money as they can and spend it how they want. No one gave you the right to make money, MONEY IS NOT REAL, the Federal reserve makes money whenever it needs to, all loans are just promises and are intangible.

Its scary to think that you work your entire life for something that in a moment of survival is only good for insulation or burning, you can't eat money, you can't drink it, it won't stop a bear from attacking you. People put to much emphasis on fiber paper printed green.

You're confusing the role in which money plays. In order for a currency to be a currency, it must be a unit of account, medium of exchange, and a store of value.

The Fed prints money to increase the money supply in order to control the economy through various interest rates and inflation. As you change the money supply, you change interest rates. The Fed can print money, yes, but they can also take money out of the market and contract the money supply.

I don't think a gold coin will stop a bear from attacking you either...perhaps you're putting too much emphasis on small, circular, metal pieces? However, that coin or paper money provides a means of exchange to acquire the proper tools and resources to repel bear attacks.

[jedimind240]

That is true, in a business sense. Its good business to charge more for people who need more care, thats simple. Jacking up rates to people is also good business if they need it and have to pay for it or be in a bad healthcare situation and financial situation. All good in a business sense to make money, but i don't feel that it is an industry that should work on making money. I would hope that most doctors don't go into the field just to make a good living, i would hope it is to help people and make peoples lives better. If the cost of their expensive education was cheaper they could make more money in a system that just existed and payed for them to have comfortable lives or better than comfortable in most cases. I believe that people deserve to be cared from if their also allowed to be born into the world, if we don't wanna care for them then we should tell people wether or not they have to bring them into this world, but thats a different discussion in most aspects.

I respect differing opinions, i really like how this forum is set up, it allows for us to discuss this in logical intelligent ways without resorting to name calling and attacks.

[smockers83]

Personally, I would like to hear what you have to say on this whole thing.

Basically, we're all f***ed, right?

Are we all f'ed? I wouldn't go that far, yet. Do I not like this bill, yes. Do I think it will absolutely screw us? No, but it has that potential and risk.

Here's what I don't like. Democrats kept pointing to Social Security and Medicare as historical programs that were voted on that we should be PROUD of. Excuse me, but must I remind everyone that for the last 8 years (not to be seen as a Bush 8 years thing) we were trying to fix those very two programs so that they wouldn't go bankrupt and ruin the government's finances? What is there to be proud of in such programs? Sorry, I'm not proud of those two things for those reasons.

What this bill doesn't do is fix the cost issue of the healthcare system. But you may say, "But Eric, this is what we were told all along what it's supposed to do, make healthcare more affordable." If any one person can tell me what this bill did to change what doctors and hospitals charge insurance companies, I'm all ears.

I've always maintained throughout this debate is that you will NEVER, EVER make healthcare more affordable by just adding more people to who can be covered because the government said so. It doesn't change anything. If healthcare now is unaffordable and the cost structure of the system isn't changed (which is not the insurance industry), healthcare will never be affordable. We're still going to see the status quo where as costs go up, doctors and hospitals will charge the insurance companies, and now the government, more, which will drive up premiums. With the current bill passed, the only way to bring down the direct "cost" to the consumers of health insurance is to put price ceilings in place. However, if you do this, either the healthcare system itself goes bankrupt or the government program goes bankrupt because the cost system has not changed. Now, if the government places price ceilings on insurance, it may force the healthcare system to revamp it's cost structure, but that's assuming that the government central planners impose a fair price ceiling, which is never the case. A centrally controlled market is never better than a free market.

[smockers83]

That is true, in a business sense. Its good business to charge more for people who need more care, thats simple. Jacking up rates to people is also good business if they need it and have to pay for it or be in a bad healthcare situation and financial situation. All good in a business sense to make money, but i don't feel that it is an industry that should work on making money. I would hope that most doctors don't go into the field just to make a good living, i would hope it is to help people and make peoples lives better. If the cost of their expensive education was cheaper they could make more money in a system that just existed and payed for them to have comfortable lives or better than comfortable in most cases. I believe that people deserve to be cared from if their also allowed to be born into the world, if we don't wanna care for them then we should tell people wether or not they have to bring them into this world, but thats a different discussion in most aspects.

Do you know what the profit margins are for the health insurance industry? 3.4%. That's very small. They aren't charging these people more because they have these conditions just because they want to make money. They are now more costly. When you apply for insurance, your health situation is looked at and that's how you're rate is determined. If you get a condition, that changes your health situation and therefore your rate because now the insurance company cannot cover you at that same rate due to costs associated with that condition. It's not like they are out stealing money, but unfortunately, the administration has singled them out as doing so (this is a true story by the way; the administration gave the pharma companies a pass because the US is still the primary drug maker/researcher in the world and to have gotten them involved in the debate and restrict them in some ways would have taken away this competitive advantage of the US).

I respect differing opinions, i really like how this forum is set up, it allows for us to discuss this in logical intelligent ways without resorting to name calling and attacks.

Apparently you haven't seen some other threads in this section. But yes, we try to not name call and attack people. Those that do go on vacation.
Modified by smockers83 at 1:58 PM 3/28/2010

[The Siath]

Bahaha I wish.

Amazing how little people realize that Health Insurance is not a clear cut cost across the country...

Where I live for a single male 20 years old insurance (basic health/life/accidental death) is $34.50 per week...

For me with a Family of 4 (I'm 41, wife is 40, and two teenage children) - the quote was insane.

It's not that I don't want insurance - it's that I refuse to pay more than it's worth to have it...

Especially finding out that paying cash at the doctor/hospital - gets you a 50% discount on the cost. - so having insurance my out of pocket would have been only a little less, while the doctor/hospital would get 50% more...

And people wonder why we need reform...

No, I don't support the 'current' bill - but I do support that our healthcare system is in need of a MAJOR OVERHAUL.

[smockers83]

^ Administrative costs and the time value of money. It's much more costly to get money from an insurance company (paperwork, time, etc.) and each day that they don't get the money, the value of that transaction goes down, so inflation measures are needed. But if they can get cash, there's very minimal transaction costs involved.

[szh]

Amazing how little people realize that Health Insurance is not a clear cut cost across the country...

Where I live for a single male 20 years old insurance (basic health/life/accidental death) is $34.50 per week...

For me with a Family of 4 (I'm 41, wife is 40, and two teenage children) - the quote was insane.

For my family (I'm 53, wife is 46, son is 12), I pay $11,000 a year for medical insurance in the Bay Area. On top of that, I have typical medical expenses of about $1,000 to $2,000 a year for all us.

Sure it is expensive, but I can also assure you that this is a drop in the bucket if I had another emergency like the one I had in 2002 where the hospitals could charge me whatever they wanted to.

And there is the true problem.

The problem is not the cost of insurance - the problem is that the rates charged at the hospitals for insured vs. non-insured people based on the notion of "negotiated rates". That is the fundamental issue!

As just a single example for me, back in Dec 2002, I went to the hospital for cardiac issues. The hospital and surgeons "bill" was over $140,000. But what the insurance company "allowed" and paid was about $18,000. My portion of the "bill" was $3,000 or so.

Every year, the same occurs with the routine doctor visits - the "negotiated" rate is always better than what the doctor feed into the system, and I pay the co-pay in most cases. So, our annual other costs are about $1000 to $2000 or so.

Would I have paid the $18,000 the hospital actually got for my single event in 2002? In a heartbeat (pun intended) - if I also did not have to pay the $11,000 I have been paying every year for "medical insurance"!

My point being that, just in the past 10 years alone, I have paid just over $110,000 in medical insurance and an additional $15,000 in other medical bills. Even including the Dec 2002 event (that year, the insurance company paid more than they collected from me), the total costs to them have been less - it has been way profitable for them over the years.

And, they are also collecting major league profit from the others in my company - nobody else had the same kind of "one-time" high expense like I did in 2002.

My basic point being that if the hospitals and doctors [could/would/did] charge me the same as what they would collect from insurance anyway, then I would have chosen to be without insurance and pay for all our own medical costs myself! This would have be cheaper for me frankly!

It's not that I don't want insurance - it's that I refuse to pay more than it's worth to have it...

It can be a rip-off.

No, I don't support the 'current' bill - but I do support that our healthcare system is in need of a MAJOR OVERHAUL.

Agreed ... I don't the support the current bill either. It was not the way to fix the problems.

Z

[seang]

With this healthcare stuff, I am such a noob that I can't really hold too much of an argument, so I go with my gut feelings on which way I lean and pretty much keep it to myself, at least online.

But I do want to reply to what AZHitman mentioned on th redistribution of wealth. The other day I found out that there are two kind of redistribution: progressive and regressive.

Now, I don't like the idea of spending other people's money and having them hate my guts, it just doesn't feel good to me. I'm poor, and I still don't want the rich man's money; I just want to eventually get some of my own.

Anyways, the kind of redistribution AZHitman mentions is progressive: from the rich to the poor. I sympathize with Him in the way that most people who have decent money have to work very hard their entire lives for that privilege, and don't really take breaks. These people are not slackers. He made a point a while back about the fact that they are owed that money by performing well in their fields. I agree with this, and as far as i'm concerned, they can keep their dimes.

Now, the other kind of redistribution: regressive. This is from the poor to the rich, and is where people get the ideas of "rich tyrants reigning down on peasants," and stuff like that. While I don't want to rob the rich man of his money, I don't want to comprimise what little I have if by chance he would want to strong-arm it for himself. Like AZHitman said, they are owed that money by the people they work for.


Modified by seang at 4:33 PM 4/7/2010

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

And there is the true problem.

The problem is not the cost of insurance - the problem is that the rates charged at the hospitals for insured vs. non-insured people based on the notion of "negotiated rates". That is the fundamental issue!

Z

Exactly...and guess what is the primary factor for such high medical costs? Malpractice insurance. Doctors pay more and more to dodge an overly litigious societies' rampant finger pointing. I mean the 2nd largest malpractice insurance supplier, St. Paul, went of of business because of traumatic(haha) losses. It takes a lot of lawsuits to sink a company that big, even with raising rates for those doctors by up to 80% for high-risk occupations. It can cost an ob-gyn in South Florida $209,000 a year to insure for delivery of babies.

And for what? So a couple of (A lot) leeches can make out like bandits when those triple bypasses they ate themselves into goes slightly wrong?I know there are actual bad doctors out there...but come on.

And healthcare is an industry so intrinsically apart of our way of life that there is nothing we can do about it short of boycotting en-mass. What other industry necessary to one's survival is allowed to behave in such a way?

It needs to stop. Claims need a maximum ceiling depending on severity...not a broad generality that is in place now.

Nurse unplug your 99 year old father who was on life-support on accident?...sorry but we can only help pay for funeral costs...you aren't getting 15million from us ***hole.

Doctor leave several sponges inside your intestines causing pain and suffering for a couple weeks? We'll pay for your anguish caused by us...but you aren't getting 1 million for sure.

We are so sorry we killed your 4 year old daughter when her breathing tube fell out...Yeah I know there are people more qualified than myself that decides how much is allowed in restitution payment and I recognize it is tough to place a cash value on human suffering...but this is the major reason why our health care system is so f***ed up.

Stop charging medical practitioners out the a** with high premiums so they don't have to run to HMO's for protection.

Once we fix that...the money will roll downhill and hopefully end-user insurance will actually be affordable for EVERYONE. That's assuming the Pharm companies stop bleeding us dry from over-priced over-hyped medication by then.

/rant...sorta in line with this thread I hope.

[smockers83]

That is true, in a business sense. Its good business to charge more for people who need more care, thats simple. Jacking up rates to people is also good business if they need it and have to pay for it or be in a bad healthcare situation and financial situation. All good in a business sense to make money, but i don't feel that it is an industry that should work on making money.

Also, this shows that you don't fully comprehend what insurance is and does or what insurance companies do with the money.

Very briefly, insurance is a pool of money that a group of people pay in to. They pay in amounts over time. These payments hedge against the risk of a catastrophic financial situation due to an unforeseen event, such as a hospital stay for something serious. They also invest in very safe investments, typically bonds. What this does is help keep the pool in line with inflation and can even lower premium rates.

[audtatious]

but i don't feel that it is an industry that should work on making money. I would hope that most doctors don't go into the field just to make a good living, i would hope it is to help people and make peoples lives better. If the cost of their expensive education was cheaper they could make more money in a system that just existed and payed for them to have comfortable lives or better than comfortable in most cases. I believe that people deserve to be cared from if their also allowed to be born into the world, if we don't wanna care for them then we should tell people wether or not they have to bring them into this world, but thats a different discussion in most aspects.

People become doctors for a large number of reasons. Helping people is one of them. It just so happens that the skill of a doctor is quite valuable in our, and any, society. Thus, the financial reward is greater. Becoming a doctor also takes quite a bit of effort over what others are trained to do. Generally, you have 4 years of college for an undergrad, 4 years of medical school and then appx 1-3 years working in a hospital for a residency or fellowship (up to 8 years to become a surgeon). If you go into a specialist role you can easily add another 2-4 years of schooling on top of that. So, 11 years of training to be a doctor, 13-15 for specialist and 16-20 for surgeon. AND, they are paying for 8-12 years of that training and getting very little while a resident.

The above, along with their value in a society, is why they should be paid quite well.

[Jesda]

Some hospitals reduce charges for the uninsured. It depends on the demographics of the location and management goals.

[AZhitman]

Exactly.../rant...sorta in line with this thread I hope.

Well-said, sir.

I have had more than one opportunity, after a major medical procedure, to go straight to an attorney and pound some doc into bankruptcy. Two were actually fairly recent.

(Was given the wrong blood product, causing a reaction - my wife discovered it, just looking at the label on the bag... THEN, a doc started me back on a blood thinner too soon after sinus surgery, causing a massive hemmorhage which resulted in a second surgery and landed me in the hospital for 2 weeks...)

I didn't.

I got better, was thankful for the efforts the docs DID put in, glad it wasn't worse, and didn't want to be *part of the problem*.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

The above, along with their value in a society, is why they should be paid quite well.

They are also, like law enforcement, what I like to call sunny day friends. Everythings all good and dandy until your best buddy doctor friend leaves scissors in your aorta. This leaves them in a situation I don't envy. I believe being a Doctor is the toughest job out there. That's why I hate seeing good men and women dragged down by a flawed system that allows you to undermine the very people that work hard to make us feel better.

I understand there are a few bad apples out there, but expecting a Doctor to be perfect every single time is illogical and stupid. This is life, risks come with the equation...you shouldn't be allowed to make money off of misfortune.

[audtatious]

I agree. My sister-in-law is a OB/GYN partner at a doctors hospital and the amount she pays in insurance is outrageous (OB/GYN is the highest rates I believe). She was at Wright Patterson AFB and when she got out of the AF she moved to Indiana due to how much worse the insurance is in Ohio.

[szh]

Yes, we have not sued about botched work. Yes, stuff happens, although what happened to my wife is over the edge, I think.

Back in Dec of 2002, she had a knee injury due to a fall (landed on a hardwood floor on her left knee). Ambulance to a hospital and they sent her to a knee surgeon after the basic trauma work and X-Ray, etc.

We also had an MRI done and sent to the surgeon who could see her. They "lost" her MRI and did not look at it at all and started her on physical therapy without checking the MRI results - which we did not realize! She was in pain during therapy and they insisted "she work through it" and assumed she was faking. A week went by ...

When we insisted they look for the MRI results, and then they "found" the MRI, it turned out that she had broken off a .75 cm piece of cartilage behind her knee cause of the injury and it was grinding into the back of the knee cap - particularly during the physical therapy. She was in pain for a damn good reason!

So, she had to go in for laparoscopic surgery to remove the broken piece of cartilage - the surgeon also "drilled" small holes in the back of the kneecap to cause scar tissue to "grow in" back there. This is considered "old school" surgery according to the second opinions we have had since then.

We damn well should have looked for another surgeon and operation when we discovered the problems with the lost MRI and the physical therapy (was associated with the same location as the surgeon). Our fault for also not thinking straight at the time (I had heart surgery a week after her knee stuff).

Result is: my wife is in constant low level pain for the past 8 years and has to go up stairs very carefully to prevent re-inflammation of the knee - she has lost muscle in her left thigh due to nerve damage from the surgery. She cannot run at all, or walk fast for any distance or wear any shoes that aren't totally flat - no heels of any kind.

Have we sued? No ... but we have thought about it.

Z