Palin Hit Another Hard One

[rdean]

Sarah Palin: Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care - WSJ.com

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.


* * * *

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context.

Palin has written a very good oped here and yes EZ, she even posted it on Facebook too.

Much has been said about her but you have to giver her credit for trying to force the dems into a debate. A debate that they clearly do not want to have.

Even with the house, senate, presidency and the media, democrats are afraid of debating their "obamacare" plan. The less light, the better. This is why people loke Palin are attacked with such vigor everytime they attempt to excercise their rights to debate and discuss something that will affect all of us.



Good job Sarah.

Not a single "you betcha"? She obviously didn't write this.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Hitting another hard one on Facebook?......hmmmmm.

 

[concept]

Hmmmm....would this promise be anything like the one she gave when she was sworn in as Governor of Alaska? Pot, kettle.

What a desperate, wild grab for a deflection.


Basically pleading, "make it stop, make it stop".


Sorry, fail.

Show me the difference dumbass. She wants to paint "Washington" as making promises they cannot keep. How is she any different? She took an oath to serve her term as Governor and she failed to keep it. Who the fuck does she think she is?

I thought I already covered your failure?

 

[Si modo]

Dealing with you pea brains DOES get old from time to time.....Palin quit and broke her oath to serve. What was YOUR point?

So did Obama and Biden. They no longer serve those who elected them in their respective states.

It's a very weak argument, but feel free to continue. I'm sure you will have no problem convincing those who already agree with to to continue to do so. If that's helpful to you...woot! You go!

Whether you like it or not, Biden and Obama not ONLY now serve those who elected them in their respective states, but also those who didn't. What part of this simple logic are you struggling with?

I love it....like puppets on a string.

If we assume your assertion that she betrayed the citizens of Alaska is true, it has nothing to do with what she discussed in the op-ed. It's nothing but an ad hominem. That is a logical fallacy. And material about her person is irrelvant to her points in the op-ed. Illogical arguments are weak.

If one wants to simply trash the person of Palin, you may have a point.

If one wants to argue against the points in the OP, you haven't a point.

You choose which point you want.

 

[VaYank5150]

What a desperate, wild grab for a deflection.


Basically pleading, "make it stop, make it stop".


Sorry, fail.

Show me the difference dumbass. She wants to paint "Washington" as making promises they cannot keep. How is she any different? She took an oath to serve her term as Governor and she failed to keep it. Who the fuck does she think she is?

I thought I already covered your failure?

That's because this conversation is outside of your pre-manufactured talking points.....you have nothing to offer. Good luck with that.

 

[concept]

Palin was elected by all to serve all in Alaska. However, she broke her promise to serve them, so she could go make big money with a book deal etc. So please, tell me again who she thinks she is pointing fingers at "Washington" claiming they are making promises they cannot keep?

So did Obama and Biden. What's your point?

Dealing with you pea brains DOES get old from time to time.....Palin quit and broke her oath to serve. What was YOUR point?

Broken record much?

It's embarrASSing now.

 

[VaYank5150]

If one wants to simply trash the person of Palin, you may have a point.

If one wants to argue against the points in the OP, you haven't a point.

You choose which point you want.

You are slow, aren't you? What part of "who is she to talk bad about anyone else breaking promises (in a political sense)" do you simply not understand?

 

[concept]

Dealing with you pea brains DOES get old from time to time.....Palin quit and broke her oath to serve. What was YOUR point?

So did Obama and Biden. They no longer serve those who elected them in their respective states.

It's a very weak argument, but feel free to continue. I'm sure you will have no problem convincing those who already agree with to to continue to do so. If that's helpful to you...woot! You go!

Whether you like it or not, Biden and Obama not ONLY now serve those who elected them in their respective states, but also those who didn't. What part of this simple logic are you struggling with?

Obama is serving himself.

And Plugs is a moron.

 

[xotoxi]

Palins OP ED in the Wall Street Journal is generating HUGE response numbers.

I wonder if her OP ED will be printed in ALL of the newspapers that she reads?

 

[concept]

Sarah Palin: Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care - WSJ.com

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.


* * * *

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context.

Palin has written a very good oped here and yes EZ, she even posted it on Facebook too.

Much has been said about her but you have to giver her credit for trying to force the dems into a debate. A debate that they clearly do not want to have.

Even with the house, senate, presidency and the media, democrats are afraid of debating their "obamacare" plan. The less light, the better. This is why people loke Palin are attacked with such vigor everytime they attempt to excercise their rights to debate and discuss something that will affect all of us.



Good job Sarah.

Not a single "you betcha"? She obviously didn't write this.

You guys sure don't disappoint.

 

[VaYank5150]

Palins OP ED in the Wall Street Journal is generating HUGE response numbers.

I wonder if her OP ED will be printed in ALL of the newspapers that she reads?

Which ones were those again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

With a few Facebook posting and an Op-Ed Piece, Palin singlehandedly inflicted more damage on ObamaCare than the entire Republican party could in the last 3 months.

 

[Sinatra]

With a few Facebook posting and an Op-Ed Piece, Palin singlehandedly inflicted more damage on ObamaCare than the entire Republican party could in the last 3 months.

Very True, and equally remarkable...

 

[Si modo]

If one wants to simply trash the person of Palin, you may have a point.

If one wants to argue against the points in the OP, you haven't a point.

You choose which point you want.

You are slow, aren't you? What part of "who is she to talk bad about anyone else breaking promises (in a political sense)" do you simply not understand?

I fear the velocity in the slow lane is still too fast-paced for you. I suppose you missed the subject of her piece - healthcare reform.

You are still stuck on an ad hominem. As I said, if we assume she broke some promise to the Alaskans and if we assume that makes her a bad person, that has nothing to do with the content and that's why it's one of those pesky logical fallacies.

I'll slow down so you can catch up to most of us, but if you can't keep up, I'll just leave you on the shoulder and move on. As an example, just recently (8/31), Khan (the king of illegal nuclear weapon proliferation - a true James Bond-style real world villian...makes Palin look like a saint) was inteviewed by Pakistani TV. His content was relevant, interesting, and full of valuable information about proliferation.

Now, I could be an emotional basketcase and remain willfully ignorant about the content of Khan's interview because I think he is close to evil, but I choose to be informed rather than ignorant.

As I said, you have a choice, too. You can cover your ears and yell, "She's a bad person. I hate her, hate her, hate her!", or you can listen to the content and argue the content.

 

[Sinatra]

If one wants to simply trash the person of Palin, you may have a point.

If one wants to argue against the points in the OP, you haven't a point.

You choose which point you want.

You are slow, aren't you? What part of "who is she to talk bad about anyone else breaking promises (in a political sense)" do you simply not understand?

I fear the velocity in the slow lane is still too fast-paced for you. I suppose you missed the subject of her piece - healthcare reform.

You are still stuck on an ad hominem. As I said, if we assume she broke some promise to the Alaskans and if we assume that makes her a bad person, that has nothing to do with the content and that's why it's one of those pesky logical fallacies.

I'll slow down so you can catch up to most of us, but if you can't keep up, I'll just leave you on the shoulder and move on. As an example, just recently (8/31), Khan (the king of illegal nuclear weapon proliferation - a true James Bond-style real world villian...makes Palin look like a saint) was inteviewed by Pakistani TV. His content was relevant, interesting, and full of valuable information about proliferation.

Now, I could be an emotional basketcase and remain willfully ignorant about the content of Khan's interview because I think he is close to evil, but I choose to be informed rather than ignorant.

As I said, you have a choice, too. You can cover your ears and yell, "She's a bad person. I hate her, hate her, hate her!", or you can listen to the content and argue the content.

 

[VaYank5150]

As I said, you have a choice, too. You can cover your ears and yell, "She's a bad person. I hate her, hate her, hate her!", or you can listen to the content and argue the content.

There is no content, other than Obama is wrong and we should look at tort reform. Tort reform has already been shown to provide merely 1-2% savings, so really what is the point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As I said, you have a choice, too. You can cover your ears and yell, "She's a bad person. I hate her, hate her, hate her!", or you can listen to the content and argue the content.

There is no content, other than Obama is wrong and we should look at tort reform. Tort reform has already been shown to provide merely 1-2% savings, so really what is the point?

"Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, (BECAUSE THEY CAN'T OR WON'T READ!) instead rushing through their own controversial proposals."

 

[Sinatra]

Tort Reform cost savings and overall economic benefits are actually quite significant. The CBO has never done a comprehensive study of the benefits of tort reform - namely the defensive medicine waste that PRI estimated costs the nation $200 billion per year. The PRI study was supported by the results of a Massachusetts Medical Society study showing five out of six doctors order more tests, procedures and referrals not for the benefit of the patient, but rather to protect themselves from potential liability. And it must always be remembered, that regarding tort reform and its implications in health care savings - it is the trial lawyer lobby who rails against tort reform, and the medical community who advocates for it. You decide which group has the more noble motivation.

If the nation is to get serious about healthcare reform, tort reform must be included.


How Tort Reform Works


TEXAS: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth; Aids Access to Healthcare

In 2003, the Texas state Legislature passed H.B. 4 to further reform the state's civil justice system. The bill addressed issues such as: limits on noneconomic damages; product liability reform; punitive damages; medical liability reform joint and several liability; and class action reform. Voters also approved a constitutional amendment, Proposition 12, in 2003, which eliminates potential court challenges to the law that limited noneconomic damages to $750,000. Since the enactment of H.B. 4 and the subsequent passage of Proposition 12, Texas has made great strides in growing its economy and providing jobs and accessible healthcare to its citizens.

Success in the business community:

Texas was awarded the 2004 Governor's Cup award for the largest number of job creation announcements (Site Selection Magazine, 3/05).
Texas also was selected as the state with the best business climate in the nation by Site Selection Magazine (Site Selection Magazine, 3/05).
Successes in the medical community:

The American Medical Association dropped Texas from its list of states in medical liability crisis (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Malpractice claims are down and physician recruitment and retention are up, particularly in high risk specialties (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
The five largest Texas insurers cut rates, which will save doctors about $50 million, according to the AMA (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Malpractice lawsuits in Harris County have dropped to about half of what they were in 2001 and 2002. There were 204 cases filed in 2004, compared with 441 in 2001 and 550 in 2002. There were 1,154 lawsuits filed in 2003, attributed to attorneys trying to file before the new law took effect (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Harris County has seen a net gain of 689 physicians, an 8.4 percent increase, according to the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Texas Medical Liability Trust, the state's largest liability carrier, reduced its premiums by 17 percent (Houston Chronicle, 5/17/05).
Fifteen new insurance companies have entered the Texas market (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
Health Care Indemnity, the state's largest carrier for hospitals, cut rates by 15 percent in 2004 (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
American Physicians Insurance Exchange and The Doctor's Company also reduced premiums (Associated Press, 2/16/05).
The American Physicians Insurance Exchange saw a $3.5 million reduction in premiums for Texas physicians in 2005. In addition, beginning May 1, 2005, 2,2000 of the 3,500 physicians insured by the company would see an average drop of 5 percent in their premiums (The Heartland Institute, 5/1/05).
Texas: Tort Reform Spurs Economic Growth

In 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a series of bills to reform the state's civil justice system. These bills addressed: limits on punitive damages, joint and several liability, sanctions for filing frivolous suits, limits on venue shopping and out-of-state filings, modifications to deceptive trade practices and medical malpractice reform.

According to the study, The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas, the total cost of the Texas tort system in 2000 was $15.482 billion. Without reforms, it is estimated that the total cost would have been $25.889 billion. Of the $10.407 billion in total direct savings, approximately $2.777 billion may be attributed to improvements at the national level while $7.630 billion in savings were from reforms in Texas. Of the total savings, $2.542 billion went directly to benefit consumers.

The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State's Economy. (August 2000)

Facts to Consider: Benefits to Consumers

It is estimated that reforms enacted in 1995 resulted in savings of $2.542 billion that directly benefits consumers.

$1.796 billion in annual cost savings from reduced inflation ($216 per household)

$7.056 billion in annual total personal growth income ($862 per household)

The net result was a savings of $1,078 per year to the typical Texas household.

The Perryman Group. The Impact of Judicial Reforms on Economic Activity in Texas Overall Economic Impact on State's Economy. (August 2000)

MISSISSIPPI: Tort Reform Already Achieving Desired Results

In a 2004 legislative special session called by Governor Haley Barbour, the Mississippi Legislature passed H.B. 13, which included reforms relating to: product liability; joint and several liability; jury service; medical liability; and noneconomic damages. Improvements in the state's economy and healthcare system already are being demonstrated since the law took effect on Sept. 1, 2004.

Successes in the business community:

Businesses have made new investments in the state starting in 2004. These include:

$35 million investment by Textron
$3.5 million payroll by Winchester Ammunition
$1.8 billion expansion by Fed Ex Ground
$20 million investment by Kingsford Charcoal (The Clarion-Ledger, 2/27/05).
Successes in the medical community:

The Medical Assurance Company of Mississippi (MACM), which provides medical malpractice insurance to about 70 percent of doctors in the state, announced a 5-percent decrease in premiums for 2006 (The Natchez Democrat, 10/19/05). MACM did not raise base premiums in 2004 or 2005, and previously had been raising rates annually up to 20 percent (Associated Press, 9/24/04).
Mass Mutual Insurance Group, St. Paul Travelers, World Insurance Company, and Equitable Life Insurance Company are returning to Mississippi (The Clarion-Ledger, 2/27/05).
TORT REFORM AT A GLANCE: Other States Begin to Make Strides

Missouri

Expansion Management, a monthly business magazine, ranked Missouri as one of the leading states in the nation for having a business friendly climate that attracts industry and new jobs. Missouri, along with Ohio and Virginia, each had five metro areas earning top honors (Jefferson City News Tribune, 6/23/05).

New Jersey

In 1995, the state legislature passed the Affidavit of Merit Statute. The law provides that in any suit alleging professional malpractice or negligence, 'the plaintiff shall, within 60 days following the date of the filing of the answer to the complaint by the defendant, provide each defendant with an affidavit of an appropriate licensed person that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards or treatment practicerthes.'

Enactment of the law coincides with a measured drop in the number of medical malpractice suits filed. In 2004, 1,493 medical malpractice suits were filed, a 24 percent decrease from 1997 when 1,971 suits were filed. 1997 is the earliest year for which data is available from the state Administrative Office of the Court (New Jersey Law Journal, 6/13/05).

West Virginia

After passing tort reform measures in 2003 that included a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, West Virginia has seen an increase in the number of new physicians in the state. According to the West Virginia Board of Medicine, 377 new physicians were licensed to the state in 2004, the most since 391 were licensed in 1999. The state previously had hit a low point with 305 new licenses in 2000 (The Heartland Institute, 5/1/05).

West Virginia Physician's Mutual, the states largest medical malpractice insurer has added 100 new doctors who had previously left West Virginia to its membership rolls. In addition, the company has applied in 2005 for a 5 percent reduction in premiums physicians pay for malpractice coverage. The president credits the reduced premiums and the addition of doctors to medical malpractice reforms that have been passed since 2001 (Charleston Gazette, 8/20/05).

Woodbrook Casualty Insurance, the state's largest private malpractice coverage provider serving about 250 doctors, sought a 3.9 percent rate decrease in 2005. The request must go to the state Insurance Commission for approval (Charleston Gazette, 8/20/05).

STUDIES: Noneconomic Damages Caps Led to Greater Percentage of Physicians

According to a study conducted by senior economists from the Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, states where noneconomic damages are limited in medical malpractice cases have more physicians per capita than states without limits. The study found that:

Counties in states with limits had 2.2 percent more physicians per capita
Rural counties in states with limits had 3.2 percent more physicians per capita
Rural counties in states with a $250,000 cap had 5.4 percent more OB-GYNs and 5.5 percent more surgical specialists per capita than rural counties in states with a cap above $250,000 (Health Tracking, 5/31/05).
According to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the adoption of direct medical malpractice reforms that limit the size of awards led to a greater growth in the overall supply of physicians. Three years after adoption of reforms, the study found that the physician supply increased by 3.3 percent. The direct reforms had a larger effect on:

The supply of nongroup vs. group physicians
The supply of most specialties with high malpractice insurance premiums
States with high levels of managed care
The supply through retirements and entries rather than through the propensity of physicians to move between states (Medical Society News, 5/25/05).


ATRA :: How Tort Reform Works

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As I said, you have a choice, too. You can cover your ears and yell, "She's a bad person. I hate her, hate her, hate her!", or you can listen to the content and argue the content.

There is no content, other than Obama is wrong and we should look at tort reform. Tort reform has already been shown to provide merely 1-2% savings, so really what is the point?

1-2% of a Trillion is big money, expect if you're a Dem

 

[Si modo]

As I said, you have a choice, too. You can cover your ears and yell, "She's a bad person. I hate her, hate her, hate her!", or you can listen to the content and argue the content.

There is no content, other than Obama is wrong and we should look at tort reform. Tort reform has already been shown to provide merely 1-2% savings, so really what is the point?

IF it is true that tort reform only provides a 1-2% savings (and that's just cheap talk without supporting information), then you have a point.

But cheap talk is not a solid foundation for a premise.

In fact, your premise is not only cheap talk, it's in error (now follows the supporting information):

HCLA Releases Report on Status of Medical Liability Reform
Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:23pm EDT

WASHINGTON, March 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Health Coalition on
Liability and Access released a report today on the status of medical
liability reform on the state and federal level. The report detailed the
success of liability reforms in states that have passed laws limiting
non-economic damages, while also acknowledging the challenges that remain.

"While comprehensive federal legislation has yet to be enacted and is unlikely
in the 111th Congress, strong advocacy efforts over the past few years have
paid significant dividends by creating a supportive climate for successful
reform legislation at the state level," the report states.

Texas is just one example of how medical liability reforms reversed the tide
of doctors fleeing the state. Prior to enacting reforms, Texas ranked 48th out
of 50 states in physician manpower. Since reforms were passed in 2003, 76
counties have experienced a net gain in emergency physicians, including 39
medically underserved counties and 30 counties that are partially medically
underserved.

The HCLA supports inclusion of medical liability reforms as a part of any
comprehensive health care reform taken up by Congress this year. Incremental
reforms, such as "early offers," specialized health courts, and the practice
evidence-based medicine are all steps to address the medical liability reform
crisis, and the HCLA will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of these
reforms.

The report notes that, "While these reforms are not comprehensive in nature
and do not address the root cause of our dysfunctional liability system, some
may promise positive results, and they all continue to highlight the critical
need for a real and lasting solution."

The HCLA will continue to make the case for reform that puts effective curbs
on excessive lawsuits, in order to lower health care costs and to ensure
patient access to quality medical care. Visit Health Coalition on Liability and Access to view the full
report.

Reuters

And, DHHS

Funny, I posted this info earlier in this thread that refutes any claim of insignificant savings from tort reform, yet someone still tries saying it. Amazing.