Obama get very warm welcome to the house

[Intense]

[
Why did you skip Massachusetts in your rebuttal?

Because the discussion was about tort reform failing to lower costs. Since Massachusetts doesn't have it, there's no before-and-after comparison. The fact that they have high healthcare costs isn't relevant, as other factors can cause high health care costs. The control group is states that had high costs and employed tort reform in an attempt to control those costs.



First off, my research is just fine, thanks. I gave a sampling; I have neither the time nor the desire to spoon feed people. Frankly, mainly the time. This is an issue I've spent many, many hours looking into, both in recent times and during the primaries.

Second - and more amusingly. If 76% of states (I think your figure is a little off, but whatever, we'll go with it) - if that's that's the case and tort reformed worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now, because health care costs would have lowered acceptably in those states and it would be a nonissue.

Last, but not least, I have been walking on Gods green earth for over five decades, before you assume anything about another person you have no real knowledge of I suggest you realize the first three letters spell ASS........

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you were simply unaware rather than foolish. I apologize for my error.

To re-emphasize - if tort reform worked and over 2/3 of the states have done it, there would be no problem with health care costs. It doesn't work. It's a shiny distraction, nothing more. Pass all the tort reforms you want; I don't particularly care - but it doesn't solve the problem. As has been shown in just over 30 states - which was mentioned in one of the links I posted unless I missed one, btw.

You conveniently skipped how the Trial Lawyers out spent the Insurance Industry buy 80% and they put 76% of that money into your beloved Democrats......

Always Verify, Anyone too busy to back up a claim is too busy to be Posting in the first place. These Guys live by "The End Justifies The Means" Philosophy, which means Anything that Advances the Goal is Acceptable, which further translates to slippery.

Great Job By The Way.

 

[Gudrid]

[
Are you deaf, dumb and blind?? Mandatory Health Care is FAILING in Massachusetts because of cost, that's what the whole debate is about, duhhhhhhh......

No, the debate is about how to lower health care costs. As I don't support mandatory health care and think that concept approaches criminal, Massachusetts has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. We were having a discussion about tort reform. Try to stay on topic.

FONT="Palatino Linotype"]Again, "some form" Bozo, if you had really done any research on this you would know there is more needed, your not going to fix the courts in thirty + years, it's over 200 years old, LOLOLOL........[/FONT]

I've already shown the examples of states that had the same tort reform that's being pushed - you're the one who dragged other states into it, remember? The ones that have passed the tort reforms currently being pushed saw healthcare costs go up in response - and all but one saw malpractice insurance rates go up. You're being nonsensical.

No apology needed, your an ASS, plain and simple.....don't stop now!!

You're welcome to call names if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change the fact that the empirical evidence is against your claims, and that the states that have passed the tort reforms you suggest have not had positive results. I'm not a big fan "if plan A doesn't work, stick to plan A."

Tort Reform is the first step, no one is saying it is the only step.....

So what are the other steps?

And to Intense:

Anyone too busy to back up a claim is too busy to be Posting in the first place.

I did back up the claim, genius. Go back and read the thread. I'm simply not going to post every single link on the internet. Nice try, though. I note that you posted one link, and a rather questionable one at that, as it is a special interest group representing businesses that directly benefit from tort reform. Its membership consists of large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and (surprise!) insurance companies.

American Tort Reform Association - SourceWatch

As I already backed up my claim quite a bit more thoroughly and with multiple sources, I suggest you rethink your rather hypocritical statement there.

 

[Intense]

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


Argue on Merritt, I don't care what your bias is to the source. Back up your attack or keep your peace. You want to prove the argument wrong go for it.

 

[Intense]

WASHINGTON – Following President Barack Obama's offer of compromise on an issue that has long divided Washington, congressional health care negotiators are considering proposals to foster alternatives to medical malpractice lawsuits.

The possibility that malpractice changes could be part of health care legislation that suddenly seems to have better chances of passing has sent doctors and trial lawyers scrambling.

Senators on the Finance Committee are looking at the possibility of special courts in which a judge with medical expertise would hear malpractice cases, says Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D. The theory is that medical judges wouldn't be as easily swayed by emotion as are lay juries. Other possibilities include the option of arbitration, as well as some liability protection for doctors who follow "best practice" clinical standards in treating their patients.

Many economists are skeptical that malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors — or even the practice of defensive medicine to avoid litigation — are major reasons for soaring health care costs. But the issue looms large politically because many conservatives in both parties are convinced that doctors routinely order up tests their patients don't need because they're afraid of getting sued.

Obama's overture in his Wednesday night speech could give him a way to peel off some Republican votes, as well as shore up support from moderates in his own party. The president said that while he doesn't see malpractice changes as a "silver bullet," he's talked to enough doctors to suspect that fear of litigation contributes to unnecessary costs. He's directing the Health and Human Services Department to provide funding for pilot programs to test some alternatives to litigation.

"I hope this signals a commitment to meaningful malpractice reform," said Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., one of only three Republicans in the Senate still negotiating with Democratic counterparts seeking an elusive bipartisan compromise.

Doctors' groups, which lost the battle for national limits on jury awards for pain and suffering, now see a possibility for other ways to reduce malpractice lawsuits.

"I think there's been significant movement," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "The physician community has said it's a problem. The Republicans have said it's a problem. And now you have a Democratic president who says it's time to deal with this."

Trial lawyers say no further action is needed from lawmakers.

"It shouldn't be part of the health reform debate in Congress because the president is already doing something today," said Linda Lipsen, the top lobbyist for the American Association for Justice, which represents lawyers. "I think it should close the door because the president has taken control over the issue."

Administration officials said Obama's order will encourage states to experiment with programs that reduce litigation and promote patient safety. Preventable medical errors are estimated to cause 44,000 to 98,000 deaths a year.

HHS officials pointed to two types of programs in particular. Both are being promoted by Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., a longtime supporter of malpractice curbs whose amendment authorizing such tests was incorporated in the House health care legislation this summer.

One kind, known as "early disclosure" or "Sorry Works," encourages doctors and hospitals to own up to their mistakes, apologize to patients and their families, and offer restitution as well as a pledge of corrective action to prevent other patients from being harmed by the same mistake.

The second type of program requires would-be malpractice plaintiffs to go before an expert before they proceed to court. The expert — it can also be a panel — acts like a grand jury to weed out frivolous cases. Gordon said that since his state of Tennessee adopted such a requirement last year, the number of malpractice cases filed has dropped by 69 percent. And malpractice insurance premiums are expected to decline by 2.5 percent this year.

Gordon and Enzi are both interested in broadening the experiment to include health courts that would focus mainly on malpractice cases. The lawmakers believe such specialized courts could be structured to protect the rights of aggrieved patients and their families, and would probably deliver speedier verdicts than the current system.

The trial lawyers are working to head that off. "We don't think that doctors and hospitals need special courts," said Lipsen. "It's a slippery slope. First you have a court for doctors, and then what? A court for plumbers?"

Nonetheless, Gordon says he doesn't see any justification for limiting the experiments with other ways to handle malpractice cases. "I certainly think the door is open now to discussion of any kind of legitimate alternative," he said.
Health negotiators look at malpractice changes - Yahoo! News

 

[GWV5903]

[
Are you deaf, dumb and blind?? Mandatory Health Care is FAILING in Massachusetts because of cost, that's what the whole debate is about, duhhhhhhh......

No, the debate is about how to lower health care costs. As I don't support mandatory health care and think that concept approaches criminal, Massachusetts has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. We were having a discussion about tort reform. Try to stay on topic.



I've already shown the examples of states that had the same tort reform that's being pushed - you're the one who dragged other states into it, remember? The ones that have passed the tort reforms currently being pushed saw healthcare costs go up in response - and all but one saw malpractice insurance rates go up. You're being nonsensical.



You're welcome to call names if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change the fact that the empirical evidence is against your claims, and that the states that have passed the tort reforms you suggest have not had positive results. I'm not a big fan "if plan A doesn't work, stick to plan A."



So what are the other steps?

And to Intense:

Anyone too busy to back up a claim is too busy to be Posting in the first place.

I did back up the claim, genius. Go back and read the thread. I'm simply not going to post every single link on the internet. Nice try, though. I note that you posted one link, and a rather questionable one at that, as it is a special interest group representing businesses that directly benefit from tort reform. Its membership consists of large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and (surprise!) insurance companies.

American Tort Reform Association - SourceWatch

As I already backed up my claim quite a bit more thoroughly and with multiple sources, I suggest you rethink your rather hypocritical statement there.

So what you are saying is you support the Public Option?

Look, it is real simple, our courts were designed to deliver justice for all, not to make millionaires out of the scum who suck us dry......you can continue to blame the Insurance Industry all you want, I have serious trouble with the coupon card we carry around called health insurance, but I know the last group we need running our health care is the Federal Government. When you look at the facts, across the board, outrageous lawsuits cost all of us more than the products are generally worth......

 

[Gudrid]

Intense - congratulations on sharing a bunch of information regarding business-friendly states that doesn't relate to this, and for confirming what I've already said several times regarding Texas. Meanwhile, every other state that passed similar tort reform saw malpractice rates rise, those same rates rose even when actual malpractice costs went down, and in Texas personal insurance rates skyrocketed even though malpractice went down. That's been posted for you thoroughly, so please stop coming back with information that either repeats what's already been said or has no bearing.

GWV - Yes, I support a public option if done right for a number of reasons, the highest on my list being the effect on people with long-term pre-existing conditions. Currently, we've created a situation in which people with long-term illnesses (degenerative bone disease, as one example, or other situations that would prevent typical 9-to-5 employment and access to group care) - people in that situation, who need medical insurance basically to survive cannot have an income of over $900 per month (that was the figure last I checked) and still get government insurance, and they can't get private insurance period. Quite a few of those people could support themselves through various means of self-employment, online work, phone work, etc. However, many of them don't because they'd lose their insurance. Others simply hide their income in order to keep their insurance. Still others live with their partner but don't marry, because being married would put their income over the level. In all of those cases, along with the insurance, they often get disability checks - which they are not allowed to refuse, because it's part of the qualification. You get both the checks and the insurance, or you get nothing. That's completely wasteful. A public option gives those people a way to get insurance in a manner that is less costly to the state.

Beyond that, I feel that a public option acts as instant oversight for insurers who drop people illegally. We have weakened to the point of nonexistent all controls that would normally apply for accountability purposes for private insurers. Erisa loopholes provide immunity to them from many lawsuits, and standard free market controls don't apply because the consumer is not the direct purchaser. The situation we have created by limiting accountability directly and due to circumstance is a bloated, inefficient insurance system and healthcare system. We can throw out pretty words like "healthcare isn't a right" - but let's face it, we're already functioning under the assumption that at least some healthcare is a right. Emergency rooms are overused for that very reason, increasing costs greatly. We're spending the money already - we are simply spending it incredibly poorly and inefficiently.

However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line.

While I have no problem with tort reform and frankly think it's generally a good idea if done reasonably and fairly, I simply don't see it making a huge difference. It's like looking at a sinking boat, bailing out 1 teacup worth of water, and saying "there, problem solved." The boat's still sinking, and the teacup isn't the priority. The priority is fixing the gaping hole.

So, again, other than tort reform, how do you propose we address the problems we are clearly facing regarding health care in this country?

 

[Zoom-boing]

However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line.

I hadn't thought of people like Christian Scientists. Or those who follow Scientology. Tom Cruise and John Travolta will be up a crick.

 

[GWV5903]

Intense - congratulations on sharing a bunch of information regarding business-friendly states that doesn't relate to this, and for confirming what I've already said several times regarding Texas. Meanwhile, every other state that passed similar tort reform saw malpractice rates rise, those same rates rose even when actual malpractice costs went down, and in Texas personal insurance rates skyrocketed even though malpractice went down. That's been posted for you thoroughly, so please stop coming back with information that either repeats what's already been said or has no bearing.

GWV - Yes, I support a public option if done right for a number of reasons, the highest on my list being the effect on people with long-term pre-existing conditions. Currently, we've created a situation in which people with long-term illnesses (degenerative bone disease, as one example, or other situations that would prevent typical 9-to-5 employment and access to group care) - people in that situation, who need medical insurance basically to survive cannot have an income of over $900 per month (that was the figure last I checked) and still get government insurance, and they can't get private insurance period. Quite a few of those people could support themselves through various means of self-employment, online work, phone work, etc. However, many of them don't because they'd lose their insurance. Others simply hide their income in order to keep their insurance. Still others live with their partner but don't marry, because being married would put their income over the level. In all of those cases, along with the insurance, they often get disability checks - which they are not allowed to refuse, because it's part of the qualification. You get both the checks and the insurance, or you get nothing. That's completely wasteful. A public option gives those people a way to get insurance in a manner that is less costly to the state.

Beyond that, I feel that a public option acts as instant oversight for insurers who drop people illegally. We have weakened to the point of nonexistent all controls that would normally apply for accountability purposes for private insurers. Erisa loopholes provide immunity to them from many lawsuits, and standard free market controls don't apply because the consumer is not the direct purchaser. The situation we have created by limiting accountability directly and due to circumstance is a bloated, inefficient insurance system and healthcare system. We can throw out pretty words like "healthcare isn't a right" - but let's face it, we're already functioning under the assumption that at least some healthcare is a right. Emergency rooms are overused for that very reason, increasing costs greatly. We're spending the money already - we are simply spending it incredibly poorly and inefficiently.

However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line.

While I have no problem with tort reform and frankly think it's generally a good idea if done reasonably and fairly, I simply don't see it making a huge difference. It's like looking at a sinking boat, bailing out 1 teacup worth of water, and saying "there, problem solved." The boat's still sinking, and the teacup isn't the priority. The priority is fixing the gaping hole.

So, again, other than tort reform, how do you propose we address the problems we are clearly facing regarding health care in this country?

Second to Tort Reform you remove exclusions from Pre Existing Conditions, and if some one as you described needed more government assistance you raise what they can earn, $900 a month is too low, done, problem solved.....now if you are talking about the person(s) who expect it and have no intention of paying anything too it, your never going to get much sympathy there.....when you consider a Government Option, call it what it is, your going to be paying for the lazy who have never had any intention of paying for their own, they will never legislate anything that stops that....

Problem is your description is the minority of people and you want to turn it over to a government that buys $450 hammers, bad choice, we have better leadership in this country than what we are currently seeing.....you don't turn everything upside down to take care of a minority, you fix that problem specifically, we turn issues like this into a multi faceted array of things and forget what got us here in the first place.....

The tea cup analogy is over simplifying the problem, as I stated before you have lawyers / law firms contributing nearly a quarter billion dollars in campaign contributions in one year, their eyes are on that $150 to $200 billion a year in malpractice premiums, if that wasn't the case they could spend 80% less, but they don't......

Last issue, Texas health care premiums are in line with all states, no one is getting any major discount living in one of the 12 states that have done nothing about Tort Reform.....

 

[Intense]

Intense - congratulations on sharing a bunch of information regarding business-friendly states that doesn't relate to this, and for confirming what I've already said several times regarding Texas. Meanwhile, every other state that passed similar tort reform saw malpractice rates rise, those same rates rose even when actual malpractice costs went down, and in Texas personal insurance rates skyrocketed even though malpractice went down.

Why is that Gudrid? Why are Insurance Rates Rising, and why is it not addressed Directly? That role does Government currently play in the Increase? What is the relationship of Unnecessary Procedures, when the alternative is Liability? When You choose a Doctor Gudrid, Are you at all interested in the Person? Should the Doctor have any say in your treatment? Should it be an Administrator? a Bureaucrat? Does it concern You if The system requires Multiple Inconveniences that for the most part may be uncompensated? Unnecessary? Denial of payment because of some bureaucratic screw up. Few things are more complicated than Tax Law, yet this is up there.

That's been posted for you thoroughly, so please stop coming back with information that either repeats what's already been said or has no bearing.

The Socialist Side of this argument has many allies. You have enough on the web, patting each others backs. AP, UP, The Networks, are behind you. It dominates the pool, which does make it more difficult research. Why not break down the cost? Show the figures of what goes where. Let's see the transparency, and Justification of how it can only be done by Government. Government could allow us to buy Insurance from where we want, with no regard to State boundaries. Malpractice Insurance can be made more affordable. Tort Reform, could remove the Get Rich Quick Scheme Perspective from the Equation. Ambulance Costs, Unnecessary use there big time. Who do the owners of these companies contribute to, to keep the costs up?

GWV - Yes, I support a public option if done right for a number of reasons, the highest on my list being the effect on people with long-term pre-existing conditions. Reform should be the Key word here. Currently, we've created a situation in which people with long-term illnesses (degenerative bone disease, as one example, or other situations that would prevent typical 9-to-5 employment and access to group care) - people in that situation, who need medical insurance basically to survive cannot have an income of over $900 per month (that was the figure last I checked) and still get government insurance, and they can't get private insurance period. Reform should be the Key word here. Quite a few of those people could support themselves through various means of self-employment, online work, phone work, etc. However, many of them don't because they'd lose their insurance. Others simply hide their income in order to keep their insurance. Still others live with their partner but don't marry, because being married would put their income over the level. Reform should be the Key word here. In all of those cases, along with the insurance, they often get disability checks - which they are not allowed to refuse, because it's part of the qualification. You get both the checks and the insurance, or you get nothing. That's completely wasteful. A public option gives those people a way to get insurance in a manner that is less costly to the state. Reform should be the Key word here.

Beyond that, I feel that a public option acts as instant oversight for insurers who drop people illegally. We have weakened to the point of nonexistent all controls that would normally apply for accountability purposes for private insurers. Erisa loopholes provide immunity to them from many lawsuits, and standard free market controls don't apply because the consumer is not the direct purchaser. The situation we have created by limiting accountability directly and due to circumstance is a bloated, inefficient insurance system and healthcare system. We can throw out pretty words like "healthcare isn't a right" - but let's face it, we're already functioning under the assumption that at least some healthcare is a right. Emergency rooms are overused for that very reason, increasing costs greatly. We're spending the money already - we are simply spending it incredibly poorly and inefficiently.

However, I do not in any way agree with mandatory health insurance, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I think would potentially impose on religious liberties of people like Christian Scientists. For another, I simply disagree with those sorts of mandates when it comes to personal decisions. I think it's a violation of privacy. The government has the right to impose taxes to provide for the general welfare, but mandating where I spent my money on top of that crosses the line. I'm in total agreement here, it is my main concern. It will serve as an added tax to low end Self Employed, already struggling to get by.

While I have no problem with tort reform and frankly think it's generally a good idea if done reasonably and fairly, I simply don't see it making a huge difference. It's like looking at a sinking boat, bailing out 1 teacup worth of water, and saying "there, problem solved." The boat's still sinking, and the teacup isn't the priority. The priority is fixing the gaping hole.

So, again, other than tort reform, how do you propose we address the problems we are clearly facing regarding health care in this country?

Most of what you state is the result of existing law. Where there is concern there needs to be transparency, and a move to remedy. My interest is in seeing Government as an Impartial Referee. Under Concern for the unable, a safety net. There are laws that need to be implemented, that most would agree on. We should be looking to repair, the system, transparency, breakdown of cost. What we don't need is the Government Mafia taking over something that it had every part in screwing up.

Clinics, are cheaper to run for the little stuff. Where are they? How can they be improved? Emergency Room Abuse should have been stopped a long time ago.

Hospital Room V.S. Hospice care? Why not? There is so much that the Medical Profession could tell us if we would allow it. Overpaid Incompetents are only going to grow the problem. Look at the Bill. It makes the Tax code look honest.


HR 3200 It more resembles a patch work quilt.

 

[Chris]

The French healthcare system is the best in the world.

They limit doctor liability and their medical schools are free.

So they have many more doctors per capita than we do, and their healthcare costs are half as much per capita. Their system works and is cheaper, so why don't we copy it?

 

[Intense]

The French healthcare system is the best in the world.

They limit doctor liability and their medical schools are free.

So they have many more doctors per capita than we do, and their healthcare costs are half as much per capita. Their system works and is cheaper, so why don't we copy it?

We need to help Doctors and we need more of them, not collars and leashes. Definitely not more forms.

 

[Gudrid]

Second to Tort Reform you remove exclusions from Pre Existing Conditions

If you're talking about a legal requirement that the insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, then that I disagree with. I think that path leads to the insurance companies doing the same thing they've done with malpractice - using it as an excuse for price gouging, whining that covering these people is too expensive and that's why they had to raise rates beyond what's needed. Then everyone suffers more under the burden of higher healthcare insurance - particularly employers - and cries out for relief. At which point, since the public option has been shot down at that point, the government ends up subsidizing and sending our tax money directly to private insurers. And the money gets spent in the manner least likely to benefit the public.

, and if some one as you described needed more government assistance you raise what they can earn, $900 a month is too low, done, problem solved.....

You've just described a major component of the public option.

So let me tell you some more about private insurance. A single woman is not generally covered for pregnancy. A married woman who gets a private plan is not covered for pregnancy during the first year of coverage. Meaning, if she gets pregnant any time in that year.

.....when you consider a Government Option, call it what it is, your going to be paying for the lazy who have never had any intention of paying for their own, they will never legislate anything that stops that....

I'll be paying less for them than I am now. The current system basically hands free health insurance to three groups: retirees, those who are honestly unable to make a living due to being disabled or other valid circumstances, and those who have low incomes because they're lazy. It is the able bodied, working, non-lazy who are penalized under the current system.

Problem is your description is the minority of people and you want to turn it over to a government that buys $450 hammers,

The government sucks, but its the only government we've got. And I certainly feel the government is more accountable to the people than private interests. The ones denying treatment to customers while decorating their lobbies with half million dollar sculptures - which are even less efficient as $450 hammers. If the private insurers had shown themselves to be more efficient than that government, then maybe I could see that argument. But they've shown themselves to be bloated, inefficient, and shady. The government, for all its faults, has done a better job with medical coverage than the private insurers - for those who qualify. I think that option should be open to all. And it this point, there's more accountability in government than in private insurance, sad as that is.

..you don't turn everything upside down to take care of a minority, you fix that problem specifically, we turn issues like this into a multi faceted array of things and forget what got us here in the first place.....

We're all being price gouged.

The tea cup analogy is over simplifying the problem, as I stated before you have lawyers / law firms contributing nearly a quarter billion dollars in campaign contributions in one year, their eyes are on that $150 to $200 billion a year in malpractice premiums, if that wasn't the case they could spend 80% less, but they don't......[/quote[

The tea cup analogy is illustrating what the empirical evidence has shown. And despite the figures posted earlier, the healthcare industry has contributed quite a bit more than trial lawyers, if you want to take the follow-the-money route. Open secrets tracks that sort of thing and is a very organized site, if you want to take a look. You can see trial lawyers contributions by association or individuals, and same for the healthcare industry. The figures you read and posted earlier included the contributions of only one segment of the healthcare industry and didn't even include the AMA.

Last issue, Texas health care premiums are in line with all states, no one is getting any major discount living in one of the 12 states that have done nothing about Tort Reform.....

Texas premiums are among the highest in the nation - I linked you to that information in the post-full-o-links from earlier, but it was a lot at once. They also have the highest rate of uninsured in the nation. Texas Has Nation’s Highest Rate of People without Health Insurance

Beyond that, of course no one is getting any major discount living in the states that have no tort reform. I never claimed malpractice laws as they stand save money; I said it has virtually no effect on costs. And it doesn't. If it did, then Texas health care premiums would be lower than other states rather than in line with other states.

I understand where you're coming from in one sense and why the concept of making a public option available in a capitalist society "feels" wrong. At the same time, I consider a healthcare safety net every bit as valid a social program as public schools, police, and fire protection. The way we're doing it now simply doesn't work.

 

[Gudrid]

Ok, Intense:

Why is that Gudrid? Why are Insurance Rates Rising, and why is it not addressed Directly? That role does Government currently play in the Increase? What is the relationship of Unnecessary Procedures, when the alternative is Liability? When You choose a Doctor Gudrid, Are you at all interested in the Person? Should the Doctor have any say in your treatment? Should it be an Administrator? a Bureaucrat? Does it concern You if The system requires Multiple Inconveniences that for the most part may be uncompensated? Unnecessary? Denial of payment because of some bureaucratic screw up. Few things are more complicated than Tax Law, yet this is up there.

Medicare has a far better record for providing promised treatments than private insurance. Right now, all that you describe is happening - private insurance bureaucrats make the call. Your words make me think that you simply have never seen it or been in a position to have to deal with it. I honestly pray you remain naive on that point, because I wouldn't wish some of the stuff I've seen on anyone.

The Socialist Side of this argument has many allies.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to adopt silly talking points, I can't have a serious conversation with you. A public option for healthcare is no more socialist than public schools. Social program does not equal socialism, and conversations based on "talking points" bore me.

What we don't need is the Government Mafia taking over something that it had every part in screwing up.

I agree that we don't need the government taking over, which is why I favor a public option in addition to the private interests, as a safety net and oversight device. I do not in any way favor a single payer system in this country.

Chris - I agree with you that it works in France. It's a different culture with different attitudes, different priorities, and a different government. I don't think it would work here.

 

[Intense]

Gudrid, You make good points, You obviously have a deep understanding of the mechanics. My concern is in adapting a Nationalist approach, one size fits all solution.
My problem is that I have very little Trust in the Powers that be. You brought up Public Schools, when the Unions get involved, the curriculum tends to get hi-Jacked. Each State would be better served in being Independent, of the Federal Government. I do support a Federal Litmus Test, on the minimums of what needs to be taught. Minimum Federal Standards. I think that The States should be free to devise their own plans to attain what is required. Variety makes room for inventive solutions, that otherwise could be missed opportunities. Federalist Government needs a lighter hand in the framework, think Madison like, Enumerated Power, not Hamilton Heavy hand, Pavlovian Response, where punishment is the end to a disagreement with the hand that controls the purse. We should neither be rewarded nor punished with increased or denied funding that originated from Us, based on arbitrary Judgments. Feds. need to Referee, Arbitrate for Equal Justice, in Medicine, and in Education. In order to serve Equal or True Justice, It needs to Recognize Us as a Society, that is true, It also needs to Recognize Us as Individuals. The Public Good V.S. The Individual Good bears no weight in matters of Justice. You can't do Evil in the name of good and remain credible. You can't serve Conscience by ignoring it.

These loop holes you refer to are a result of Poor Laws. Poor Laws are generally the result of either poor information or corruption, or not being up to date. We need a system that is adaptive, flexible, transparent, and accountable. It needs to break down easy. Nothing today resembles that. To examine that directly, is the beginning of resolution. Government had a hand in it with the Insurance Companies, and the Care Givers. I want to hear from all of them. What are your concerns, what do you recommend we change and why? We would do good to weight these arguments, and sort out what is of value, and what is not. Instead we are Clear Cutting and paving over God Knows what, at what expense?

How many millions of valuable property was just destroyed in cash for Clunkers? Could not some of those vehicles gone to better use, like even in a Third World Nation, at the least? 4 Wheel Drive Vehicles, in Earth Quake ravaged places or flood damaged? Americares The Red Cross, could not have found a home for them? Disaster Relief?

Nationalism is the first step to Socialism, to Marxism, to Totalitarianism. I don't trust Our System, because It has lost sight of Individual Liberty. Mandate without consent of the Governed is Tyranny.
Government spending without clear sight is waste.

Lets consider helping Doctors and those in Medical School, with their costs, which are unjustified.

 

[GWV5903]

Second to Tort Reform you remove exclusions from Pre Existing Conditions

If you're talking about a legal requirement that the insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, then that I disagree with. I think that path leads to the insurance companies doing the same thing they've done with malpractice - using it as an excuse for price gouging, whining that covering these people is too expensive and that's why they had to raise rates beyond what's needed. Then everyone suffers more under the burden of higher healthcare insurance - particularly employers - and cries out for relief. At which point, since the public option has been shot down at that point, the government ends up subsidizing and sending our tax money directly to private insurers. And the money gets spent in the manner least likely to benefit the public.

Let me re classify this, lets call it Pre Existing Non Catastrophic, it is a burden on all of us when you have this patient uninsured, we rate the premiums for a driver based on their record, this is controlled on a state level, the same can be done with health insurance, some how we make it out to be the evil insurance company, our government rights the rules for how they conduct business, letting the government compete is a cop out, do what is best for the people, not the lawyers, not the hospitals and certainly not what is best for the politicians.....

, and if some one as you described needed more government assistance you raise what they can earn, $900 a month is too low, done, problem solved.....

You've just described a major component of the public option.

How is that? Subsidies? They do not solve the problem.....

So let me tell you some more about private insurance. A single woman is not generally covered for pregnancy. A married woman who gets a private plan is not covered for pregnancy during the first year of coverage. Meaning, if she gets pregnant any time in that year.

You are discussing this with someone who paid cash for our first child, nobody else was responsible for this pregnancy but me and my wife, we didn't expect someone else to pay for our responsibility........

I'll be paying less for them than I am now. The current system basically hands free health insurance to three groups: retirees, those who are honestly unable to make a living due to being disabled or other valid circumstances, and those who have low incomes because they're lazy. It is the able bodied, working, non-lazy who are penalized under the current system.

As long as we allow this mentality to exist, you and I will be paying for this group no matter what program is implemented, we are developing a socialist mentality, when we need to find ways to make these less fortunate more responsible citizens, carrying them is not the answer for long term solutions and forcing a society to do such is the food for reveloutions......

The government sucks, but its the only government we've got. And I certainly feel the government is more accountable to the people than private interests. The ones denying treatment to customers while decorating their lobbies with half million dollar sculptures - which are even less efficient as $450 hammers. If the private insurers had shown themselves to be more efficient than that government, then maybe I could see that argument. But they've shown themselves to be bloated, inefficient, and shady. The government, for all its faults, has done a better job with medical coverage than the private insurers - for those who qualify. I think that option should be open to all. And it this point, there's more accountability in government than in private insurance, sad as that is.

Yes the government sucks, but it is not the only government we've got, no, it is the government we have allowed, this is nothing more than a excuse to let them become much, much worse......again, it is the governments responsibility to make sure we have governing rules that protect our interest, and to date they have failed, so your reasoning is just let them run it????? Makes no sense, my 11 year old could make better decisions.....So you believe Medicare is efficient? The VA is efficient? Granted I have a hard time with the abuse of corporate America, but I have been involved with it most of my adult life and they have been for the most part responsible participants, I can find bad in everything, like a Congressman or Senator who receives full retirement benefits after serving only five years, yet these are the same people who we elect, as for a private sector executives, most have climbed the corporate ladder thru some real effort, politicians on the other hand, I'll stop there.......

We're all being price gouged.

Yes we are, and it has gone on sense the beginning of time, this is the best example I have for the problem with lawyers and accountants, the average American loses more every day....

The tea cup analogy is over simplifying the problem, as I stated before you have lawyers / law firms contributing nearly a quarter billion dollars in campaign contributions in one year, their eyes are on that $150 to $200 billion a year in malpractice premiums, if that wasn't the case they could spend 80% less, but they don't......[/quote[

The tea cup analogy is illustrating what the empirical evidence has shown. And despite the figures posted earlier, the healthcare industry has contributed quite a bit more than trial lawyers, if you want to take the follow-the-money route. Open secrets tracks that sort of thing and is a very organized site, if you want to take a look. You can see trial lawyers contributions by association or individuals, and same for the healthcare industry. The figures you read and posted earlier included the contributions of only one segment of the healthcare industry and didn't even include the AMA.

Yes, Open Secrets is who I used the figures from for Lawyers vs Insurance political contributions, and in the 2008 campaign cycle $29,175,189 was contributed from the Pharmaceutical / Health Industries, yet again well short of the $233,941,857 from Lawyers / Law Firms for the same period.......the old saying is correct, we are better off with them at the bottom of the ocean......[/SIZE]

Last issue, Texas health care premiums are in line with all states, no one is getting any major discount living in one of the 12 states that have done nothing about Tort Reform.....

Texas premiums are among the highest in the nation - I linked you to that information in the post-full-o-links from earlier, but it was a lot at once. They also have the highest rate of uninsured in the nation. Texas Has Nation’s Highest Rate of People without Health Insurance

Yes we have the highest amount un insured, that can also be contributed to illegals, but we are in line with the rest of the nation when it comes to premiums, you are looking at the second largest state population wise with 24+ million......Texas also has one of the most robust economies, job growth over the past decade is second to none.....

Beyond that, of course no one is getting any major discount living in the states that have no tort reform. I never claimed malpractice laws as they stand save money; I said it has virtually no effect on costs. And it doesn't. If it did, then Texas health care premiums would be lower than other states rather than in line with other states.

It helps control the cost, we ALL pay for higher malpractice, just as we pay for theft or anything else that effects the overall cost of any product, it is reality, plain and simple.....

I understand where you're coming from in one sense and why the concept of making a public option available in a capitalist society "feels" wrong. At the same time, I consider a healthcare safety net every bit as valid a social program as public schools, police, and fire protection. The way we're doing it now simply doesn't work.

We have a safety net for the uninsureded and or underprivileged and yes this is a capitalisticic society, it is the single largest reason we have what we have today, we become a follower instead of a leader with the plan Obama wants and we clearly know the problems that come with socialized medicine....we have the best quality of healthcare in the world today, don't be fooled with the WHO statistics......you have to ask your self, why are we going to settle for this?????

 

[Intense]

Doctors sure seem pissed at this legislation. It seems to be triggering a revolt.

Bottom Line, The Feds. want To Impose a Mandatory Fee on Everyone that is Legal and uninsured as if it is a reasonable burden to those that would have a hard time paying for the Insurance in the first place. This seems very heavy handed. Tax them for not playing. Encourage more Illegals to come and get fixed up, we have it covered, after all. There is so much disingenuous about this fix. Don't worry though, because even though nothing is being done about the actual cost of service, this is what the Union's want. The Unions are all that matters. Feed the Beast.