Democrats can't even compromise with themselves.

"We won!"
-- Obama --

"Lock the doors and turn off the lights"
--- Pelosi ---

And remember this:

Democrats can't even compromise with themselves

It's the Republican's fault, though

Among independents, 56 percent see the Republicans in Congress as too unbending and 50 percent say so of the president

"As party leaders tussle over the proposed bipartisan health care summit, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they want Congress to keep working to pass comprehensive health-care reform. Democrats overwhelmingly support continued action on this front, as do 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans.

The sticky part of widespread desire for compromise is that it's simple to want it from the other side. About three-quarters of Democrats see the congressional Republicans as intransigent, while a similar proportion of Republicans see Obama that way. But even Republicans are critical of their congressional leadership, with 44 percent seeing them as doing too little to strike deals with Obama;"

So much from the "start from scratch", "hit the reset button" crowd, much to the dismay of the GNOP that wants to kill any reform.

Only 7% listed health care reform as a concern during the election. This is a liberal dream, by and for liberal power. I hope these idealogs keep believing their propaganda spewed by these idealogs and don't give up. Power to We the People!!!

There are not only two sides to this issue, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room is the insurance lobby.
The media could do us all a service by telling us how much money they take from the insurance industry whenever they report the comments by that person. Sen. Ben Nelson should have to explain to his constituents why he represents insurnce companies instead of them.

"Only 7% listed health care reform as a concern during the election."

Link please, I simply think you pulled that out of your ass.

Posted by RIGHTPOLICY at 2010-02-10 10:25 AM | Reply

More accurately a "progressive" dream since about 1912, no?

That 800lb gorilla donates pretty healthily to both sides of the aisle, where as the 1 ton ass monkey trial lawyers are pretty much in the Dem pocketbooks.

I am enjoying the healthcare misdirection, perhaps Obama should write "its the economy stupid" on his palm pilot...

"where as the 1 ton ass monkey trial lawyers are pretty much in the Dem pocketbooks."

The trial lawyers who represent victims of medical malpractice WHICH adds a tiny amount tho health care costs though you'd think it was a major contributor considering the importance the Republicans are placing on tort reform.....a version of which is in the Senate Bill BTW!

When a surgeon cuts off your leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I hope $250,000 compensates you for your loss. It wouldn't compensate me.

SHEEPLE I think your gorilla is only a 5 lb. monkey.

medical malpractice WHICH adds a tiny amount tho health care costs

FAR FROM true and proven repeatedly. Malpractice JUDGMENTS account for a tiny amount of health care costs, but malpractice insurance is a large cost and drives the costs of patient's care. Many doctors in Miami are practicing without the protection to try and save their patients money.

I want health care reform too. But I'm sure to define it differently than the libbies do.

Health care reform does not mean government run health care. How many in the poll were in favor of government run health care? Apart from the obvious players, who does not want more affordable health insurance? Poll shows nothing new. Except to DANNI who thinks this poll is a mandate for healthcare to be free for all - she probably believes it is possible to invent a perpetual motion machine also.

The Congressional Budget Office found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. According to the CBO, medical malpractice costs are not a big part of health costs; in fact, they amounted to less than 2 percent of overall health care costs. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care spending by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.

That said, let's look at the facts. By far most malpractice cases are dismissed. Indeed, an astonishing 70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24% were settled, 5% were tried and found in favor of the defendant and minuscule 0.8% were settled in favor of the plaintiff. It's not likely that the 0.8% is driving up the cost of insurance. Regulatory filings by insurers show that net claims for medical malpractice paid by 15 leading insurance companies have remained flat over the last five years, while net premiums have surged 120%. Outrageous as that sounds it is not surprising to me when you consider the meaning of "net claims paid." After all, that's a figure that is far less than the court records show on jury awards, as I've explained above.

From 2000 to 2004, the increase in premiums collected by the leading 15 medical malpractice insurance companies was 21 times the increase in the claims they paid. Three of those companies focus primarily on medical malpractice insurance; they are publically held companies and their stock prices have risen more than 100 percent.

I think you better re-phrase the question.

When a surgeon cuts off your leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I hope $250,000 compensates you for your loss. It wouldn't compensate me.

#10 | Posted by danni

That's why I never leave home without a permanent marker. If I'm coherhant, I'm writing instructions on my limbs.

"It's the Republican's fault, though"

You silly son of a bitch, you would spout off at a fencepost and it torn down!

From 2000 to 2004, the increase in premiums collected by the leading 15 medical malpractice insurance companies was 21 times the increase in the claims they paid.

Like I said, it is not judgements, it is insurance costs paid by doctors just to practice that is driving up costs. To say "Malpractice is not an issue in the cost of health care" is to show how limited one's view of the subject is.

Yes, K, but it appears to be a problem of price gouging by the insurers, not that actual costs are driving malpractice premiums upwards.

If DANNI does not like your % or unless it presents her point of view then u pulled it out your ass.

That said, let's look at the facts. By far most malpractice cases are dismissed

Whether the case is dismissed, or the doctor found not liable doesn't matter to the provider of malpractice insurance, they'll raise a doctor's rates no matter what (yes, even if its dismissed). Which means they have to pay more, which means you have to pay more.

Snow days rule.

"From 2000 to 2004, the increase in premiums collected by the leading 15 medical malpractice insurance companies was 21 times the increase in the claims they paid."

Yet, providers' malpractice costs are totally unrelated to health care costs. Nice theory corks, has the CBO calculated the CYA factor of malpractice? No? Interesting...

Posted by 726

This is a bad poll.

I want to see how many Nay Sayers want Congress to "Give Up and Start Over" instead of just "Give Up".

It's probably in the questioning. People trying to manipulate polls.

Got a question for ya, 726..

Do you really think that 55% of Republicans enjoy seeing their premiums go up 39% a year?

Think about it!

The Libs in Congress need to realize that they've lost this one and need to start over.

"Fail Quickly"!

This concept helps cut losses and to start on something new from the beginning when a seemingly good idea is not playing out. Too many times, the owner of an idea just will not let it die and will pour money and time and worse, other people's money and other people's time into a project that is bogued down and going nowhere.

"Like I said, it is not judgements, it is insurance costs paid by doctors just to practice that is driving up costs."

I'm sure it does but not by a large percentage and furthermore insurance company profits have increased in states that passed tort reform so really our problem is, once again, greedy insurance companies.

-so really our problem is, once again, greedy insurance companies.

Whut Ah said.

"From 2000 to 2004, the increase in premiums collected by the leading 15 medical malpractice insurance companies was 21 times the increase in the claims they paid."

Nice of the SC to have ruled that insurance is not a product and thus they are immune from antitrust laws and may collude with each other to divide up the markets and eliminate competition. The profits earned by insurance companies could be best addressed by eliminating their immunity, not by tort reform which will have no effect whatever on how much profit they decide to keep.

"greedy insurance companies."

Can you guys on the left at least admit that a reason you won't support tort reform is that most of the donations that come from wealthy lawyers goes to the DNC? Enough with the crap about how it won't effect healthcare costs, because it will... just admit that it would effect your political donations and we can all move forward.

#28

Thinks margins are more important than volume to protected monopolies that record multi-billion dollar profit quarters.

Did I say, "thinks"?

"Can you guys on the left at least admit that a reason you won't support tort reform is that most of the donations that come from wealthy lawyers goes to the DNC?"

I can only speak for myself, and my reasons have nothing to do with that. My reasons are because I don't like to give up my rights, the right to sue for damages is a right which dates back to the Magna Carta.

-Can you guys on the left at least admit that a reason you won't support tort reform is that most of the donations that come from wealthy lawyers goes to the DNC?

"70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24% were settled, 5% were tried"

Yeah, the Left fights hard for that 5 percent that are tried in court.

uh-huh.

So the fact that something like 90% of political donations from lawyers goes to the party you vehemently support has nothing to do with it?

Posted by danni at 2010-02-10 11:04 AM | Reply

Agreed. No anti-trust status for insurers. It was established in the early days, around the time of FDR for the sharing of underwriting information so that policies could be accurately priced to affect medical loss. At this point, the "information age" has made this information widely available and insurance carriers rely very little on information exchange for underwriting, as one's ability to predict medical loss has become an insurance companies main advantage in "profit" acquisition.

The hard part is getting the states to allow more companies in to "compete". Will anti-trust do anything to resolve that?

The trial lawyers who represent victims of medical malpractice WHICH adds a tiny amount tho health care costs though you'd think it was a major contributor considering the importance the Republicans are placing on tort reform.....a version of which is in the Senate Bill BTW!

When a surgeon cuts off your leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I hope $250,000 compensates you for your loss. It wouldn't compensate me.

#10 | Posted by danni

Danni, this is bullshit!

Show me where tort reform is proposing this!

The largest part of tort-reform is to weed out most of the cases because they are frivolous. It's EXTREMELY expensive for the Medical Industry to bring every case to trial. The Malpractice Insurance will settle most of the cases with the patient even though the Doctor knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that they would win the case. But it simply costs many times more to bring the case to trail than to simply settle a frivolous claim.

This is VERY expensive, mostly because the claimant has absolutely no risk. I can sue any doctor for anything I make up and will probably win by getting some kind of settlement.

Tort Reform is suggesting that there be a board of experts looking at every case to determine if the case has merit before bringing it into the court system.

If there is Malpractice, then try the case in court and award the patient whatever a jury decides!

"70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24% were settled, 5% were tried"

And the lawyers didn't get paid in any of that work? uh huh.

I didn't know all malpractice lawyers worked for free Cork... that's amazing. What humanitarians.

One would wonder how these lawyers pay the bills at all since they get absolutely no money whatsoever out of suing doctors. Its shocking. Really.

Can you guys on the left at least admit that a reason you won't support tort reform is that most of the donations that come from wealthy lawyers goes to the DNC?

Absolutely true.

Thank you. And I get why the left wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds it, but a little honesty about it would be refreshing.

70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed

This number is misleading. It doesn't tell you why they were dismissed.

"70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24% were settled, 5% were tried"

Yeah, the Left fights hard for that 5 percent that are tried in court.

uh-huh.

#32 | Posted by Corky

Corky, tell me how much does it cost a doctor if he's sued and 70% of the time, the case is thrown out?

How much does that cost?

Rob, I am pro tort reform, but that's because I am a tax lawyer and could care less about reform.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-10 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag: - "thinks" the Communist Manifesto should replace the Pledge of Allegiance

"70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed, 24% were settled, 5% were tried"

100% required lawyers for the doctors and 100% resulted in Medical Malpractice Insurance Rates being raised on the doctors, but no relation to medical costs at all.

I didn't know all malpractice lawyers worked for free Cork... that's amazing. What humanitarians.

#36 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Medical "defense" attorneys charge upwards of $500+/hour! You don't screw around with the new guys just starting out charging $275!

100% required lawyers for the doctors and 100% resulted in Medical Malpractice Insurance Rates being raised on the doctors, but no relation to medical costs at all.

#43 | Posted by kanrei

WTF? Are you trolling kanrei? LOL!

Rob, I am pro tort reform, but that's because I am a tax lawyer and could care less about reform.

#41 | POSTED BY TAXMAN

Nice. You guys sobered up down there yet? LOL.

"70% of malpractice cases closed in 2003 were dismissed

This number is misleading. It doesn't tell you why they were dismissed."

The operative word there is "dismissed." Few cases with a real cause of action will be dismissed. Regardless of the strength of the case, it costs a great deal of money to even get to the dismissal. The fact that so many are being dismissed shows the litigiousness of the country, suing at every opportunity, regardless of actual intent or harm. It all adds up to higher costs.

You don't screw around with the new guys just starting out charging $275!

If you are using a firm where new associates are billing out at $275, you are a freaking moron.

Are you trolling kanrei? LOL!

I guess I need the sarcasm emoticon, huh?

True Spoke. The fact that 70% are dismissed shows the NEED for some sort of Tort Reform.

The fact that so many are being dismissed shows the litigiousness of the country, suing at every opportunity, regardless of actual intent or harm

Well, when an attorney can take a cut of up to 40%, if not more, of any damages awarded, having a case dismissed really doesn't hurt his pocket book, and that risk is certainly worth the reward of collecting.

Can you guys on the left at least admit that a reason you won't support tort reform is that most of the donations that come from wealthy lawyers goes to the DNC? -- #29 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Not me, b/c that's truly not the reason.

Until doctors adopt patient safety reforms, no way in hell should anyone support tort reform.

You guys sobered up down there yet?

Saints parade was last night - I took my son out there, despite the cold, and it was a blast.

Mardi Gras parades really start up tonight and go through next Tuesday. Today is my last day of work until next Wednesday, and I plan on celebrating the entire time. However, having a kid for the first time during Mardi Gras means it won't be as crazy as prior years.

Personally, I have always believed that the Republicans focus on tort reform has more to do with appearing to have solutions to health care costs without having to actually agree to anything that might actually lower health care costs. It is hard to believe that tort reform would lower costs nearly as much as competition from a public option.

Regardless of the strength of the case, it costs a great deal of money to even get to the dismissal.

It's likely to cost the plaintiff a lot more. Hospitals have lawyers on retainer; the plaintiffs are more likely to have to pay legal fees.

The fact that so many are being dismissed shows the litigiousness of the country... -- #47 | Posted by SpokaneJim

No. It's a reminder of where the burden of proof falls, and it shows how hard it is for an individual to take on a big organization.

Not me, b/c that's truly not the reason

Okay, same question to you that was posed to Danni: That a group of very wealthy political donors heavily supports the party you are a part of has nothing to do with your lack of support for tort reform? Pissing off those lawyers would mean less money, which means less campaigning, which means less democrats elected, which means more Republicans elected. But that has nothing to do with your anti tort reform stance? That is Grade A 100% pure bullshit.

However, having a kid for the first time during Mardi Gras means it won't be as crazy as prior years.

#53 | Posted by taxman

I assume he's seen a nipple before.:)

"According to data analyzed by the Globe Spotlight Team, three percent of the doctors covered by the Joint Underwriting Association, the state's largest malpractice insurer, accounted for almost one-third of its cases that were pending or settled out of court. The same three percent have accounted for an estimated $22 million in payments in an 8 1/2 year period. Studies in other states, from Florida to Pennsylvania, have had similar findings."

Reality

Our white collar small to medium sized company (around 300 employees) average demographic company is experiencing a 64% increase in health insurance.

REAL NUMBERS

last year we paid $1.7 million to the HI co.

the HI co paid $2.0 million in claims.

ok so that is around a 17% loss, I can accept them looking to recoup those losses.

Ok a 17% increase on top of that to match the claims from last year

new mandates in the state requires a 4% increase.

they have justified a 38% increase but they are asking for 64%.

we have sought other quotes to provide our HI and received quotes of 65% and 83% increases.

The justification for the difference? trends.

umm trends? ok the graph line of our claims.

26%?

That is UTTER BULLSHIT.

There is collusion going on and price gouging, PURE AND SIMPLE.

We as a nation need to realize that health insurance companies add NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to our health care. And they take around 30% of the health care dollars.

people are so fucking stupid to not realize that this is a waste of money.

MEDICARE FOR ALL.

It will work, it will cost you less money and will provide you with better care.

PERIOD

It's likely to cost the plaintiff a lot more.

Not true. We have all seen those commercials were "if you don't win, you don't pay." It has become no risk gamble to sue doctors today.

...when an attorney can take a cut of up to 40%, if not more, of any damages awarded, having a case dismissed really doesn't hurt his pocket book, and that risk is certainly worth the reward of collecting. -- #51 | Posted by taxman

The plaintiff can be hit with a frivolous claim counter-suit, and forced to pay the defendant's legal fees.

It is hard to believe that tort reform would lower costs nearly as much as competition from a public option.

#54 | POSTED BY DANNI

I'm curious how anyone computes the actual costs of "defensive medicine." Tests, MRIs, CAT Scans, overnight and extended hospital stays that are all completely unnecessary but commonly done so that months/years later a lawyer can't say, "Well you didn't order an MRI," and a jury of NON-doctors thinks its important.

How do you calculate the cost of that, since no doctor will flat out say at the time (at least to the patient and other non-docs)?

"That is Grade A 100% pure bullshit."

The idea that you could know what my motivation is constitutes real bull shit. I post over and over showing tort reform is a cure without a disease but you don't even bother digesting that information.
If, by giving up our right to sue, we could significantly lower health care costs it might be something to consider but study after study shows it just won't significantly lower our costs.

TAke away insurance industry exemptions from antitrust laws before we consider any consideration of issues which benefit them.

As long as insurance company profits are significantly increasing while awards are not there is some flim flam going on here.

I'm curious how anyone computes the actual costs of "defensive medicine." Tests, MRIs, CAT Scans, overnight and extended hospital stays that are all completely unnecessary but commonly done so that months/years later a lawyer can't say, "Well you didn't order an MRI," and a jury of NON-doctors thinks its important.

DING DING DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER! Big NW flag!

We have all seen those commercials were "if you don't win, you don't pay." It has become no risk gamble to sue doctors today. -- #60 | Posted by kanrei

You're assuming those lawyers accept every case that comes through their door. No attorney who did that, who paid all the costs of litigation up through trial, and who agreed to assume the risk of counter-suits could stay in business very long.

the plaintiffs are more likely to have to pay legal fees.

Not when the attorney takes the case on a contingency fee basis.

The plaintiff can be hit with a frivolous claim counter-suit, and forced to pay the defendant's legal fees.

That's part of tort reform - it's pretty hard right now to receive any kind of award for a frivolous claim, it generally has to be aggregious. Many of those supporting tort reform want to make it easier to go after lawyers who take cases on a contingency fee basis.

Okay, same question to you that was posed to Danni: That a group of very wealthy political donors heavily supports the party you are a part of ... -- #56 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Huh? I'm not part of either party, Rob.

I post over and over showing tort reform is a cure without a disease but you don't even bother digesting that information

I'm married to a surgeon. We actually pay malpractice insurance. She regularly practices defensive medicine. Tort reform would save boat loads in both straight cash and everyone's time (which is also money)

You guys sobered up down there yet?

Saints parade was last night - I took my son out there, despite the cold, and it was a blast.

Mardi Gras parades really start up tonight and go through next Tuesday. Today is my last day of work until next Wednesday, and I plan on celebrating the entire time. However, having a kid for the first time during Mardi Gras means it won't be as crazy as prior years.

#53 | Posted by taxman

Sorry Taxman, but those days are over. I stopped going to Mardi Gras all together when I started a family. I lived in Lafayette and still didn't go out.

The years before marriage, still in college, were taking the MG with the top down with 5-6 people (mostly girls) sitting on the back (using the SYT technique to get beads) following a parade down St Charles Ave, through Lee's Circle and finally the French Quarter, having a few very large hurricanes, walking through the streets, losing my group, avoiding drunks who want to fight, and finally meeting up at Pat O'Brians at 4am. -- Every Night, Year after Year!

But a wife seems to stop all that. Children change your mind about the entire event!

If your wife cuts off my leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I want more than $250,000.
I wonder if doctors would willingly give up the right to sue their lawyers for malpractice. Attorneys face malpractice suits too. If the attorney representing me in a medical malpractice suit screws up he/she can be sued for damages just like most other professionals.

..the plaintiffs are more likely to have to pay legal fees.

Not when the attorney takes the case on a contingency fee basis. -- #66 | Posted by taxman

(A) Attorneys don't take cases on a contingent-fee basis unless they believe they're strong cases, and

(B) Contingent-fee contracts are written in different ways, but the people I know who have filed suit were on the hook for all costs except for the lawyers' time -- e.g., cost of expert witnesses, cost of obtaining and copying records, any costs associated with getting legal staff and witnesses to depositions and trial, and most important, costs of counter-suits (like frivolous suit, in which case the plaintiff may have to pay the defendant's legal fees).

Seriously, can anyone detail out how the CBO factored in defensive medicine when accounting for how tort reform would effect HC costs? I would really love to know... I never seen a doctors chart that had a "Defensive Medicine" check box.

Personally, I have always believed that the Republicans focus on tort reform has more to do with appearing to have solutions to health care costs without having to actually agree to anything that might actually lower health care costs. It is hard to believe that tort reform would lower costs nearly as much as competition from a public option.

#54 | Posted by danni

Danni, it's only part of the problem of rinsing costs. If you are asking to put a finger on the one thing that causes costs to rise, you can't.

If your wife cuts off my leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I want more than $250,000.

Do you have any idea of how astronomically rare that is when factored in with the amount of surgeries that take place daily? Do you have any idea of the amount of checks and precautions that take place before a surgery even begins?

Yes, mistakes happen, and when they do patients should be taken care of.

Why not have a set limit per injury, a reasonable figure and then a panel of experts that decides if the doctor is at fault? Not a slick lawyer and an uneducated jury.

People would still get paid, and costs would drop substantially.

"It's likely to cost the plaintiff a lot more."

It's actually likely to cost the plaintiff nothing. The vast majority of personal injury cases arising from malpractice are worked on a contingency basis. No win, no payment for the plaintiff's attorney. Which is one reason why they work so hard for the punitive damages, that's where the big money is, and defrays the costs of those cases dismissed on summary judgment.

...it's pretty hard right now to receive any kind of award for a frivolous claim... -- #66 | Posted by taxman

Link?

"According to data analyzed by the Globe Spotlight Team, three percent of the doctors covered by the Joint Underwriting Association, the state's largest malpractice insurer, accounted for almost one-third of its cases that were pending or settled out of court. The same three percent have accounted for an estimated $22 million in payments in an 8 1/2 year period. Studies in other states, from Florida to Pennsylvania, have had similar findings."

www.saynotocaps.org

#58 | Posted by danni

Danni, you need to look at everything! Stop linking to articles that hide the truth in order to get their agenda across.

"If your wife cuts off my leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I want more than $250,000."

There's no one trying to limit the amount of money for your loss. Actual damages cannot be legislatively denied, that due process and "takings" issue. The problem lies in the punitive damages awards. Your leg will likely give you actual damages of far more than $250K, given age, job, health, etc. But do you also deserve an additional tens of millions of dollars in order to simply punish the doctor and hospital? Some is OK, especially if there was a real fuckup. The question is is how much. Therein lies the problems with tort reform.

Interestingly proponents of tort reform tend to talk about frivolous claims as the reason we nod reform.

However, the end result always seems to be limiting the amount an actual victim can receive as damages.

ObamaCare IS NOT health reform.

Why not have a set limit per injury, a reasonable figure and then a panel of experts that decides if the doctor is at fault? Not a slick lawyer and an uneducated jury.

People would still get paid, and costs would drop substantially.

#74 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

I side with Danni on this one. Fuck that!

#76 | Posted by Phoenix at 2010-02-10 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's all in state statutes and case law. I really don't have time to go research in westlaw for you.

Why not have a set limit per injury, a reasonable figure and then a panel of experts that decides if the doctor is at fault? Not a slick lawyer and an uneducated jury.

because doctors cannot be trusted to police their own. like bankers or worker safety or police etc, self regulation does not work

...it's pretty hard right now to receive any kind of award for a frivolous claim... --

Yes and no. Most claims are settled, even relatively frivolous ones. But most true frivolous claims will be dismissed upon a summary judgment claim or 12(b)(6) motion [failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted]. This still costs the doctor, hospital, and insurance company lots of money

"Seriously, can anyone detail out how the CBO factored in defensive medicine when accounting for how tort reform would effect HC costs? I would really love to know..."

Just a wild guess but I would image they compared states who have passed tort reform with those who have not. They didn't find a significant difference in costs. That logic works for me.

I side with Danni on this one. Fuck that!

#81 | POSTED BY EDDIE

You've got to get juries out of the equation... or we need a complete reform of how juries are selected in this country. Maybe juries should actually be of our peers. Meaning a jury in a malpractice case can only be made up of other doctors. People who would know the difference between a mistake and a complication and whatnot.

Do you have any idea of the amount of checks and precautions that take place before a surgery even begins? -- #74 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Not nearly enough. That's a consistent finding in the patient safety literature -- e.g.

"Why not have a set limit per injury, a reasonable figure and then a panel of experts"

We can let juries decide life or death issues in criminal cases but not medical malpractice???

Maybe juries should actually be of our peers. Meaning a jury in a malpractice case can only be made up of other doctors. -- #86 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Sure, Rob. And a twice-convicted murderer on trial for murder should have a jury composed only of other twice-convicted murderers.

A 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine estimates that as many as 44,000 to 98,000 people die in U.S. hospitals each year as the result of lapses in patient safety

I said surgeries. This seems to include all patients throughout the hospitals from any mistake/complication.

Just out of curiosity how many people go to hospitals in america every year? How many hospitals are there in america? If you're at the low end of that number, given the amount of people in this country is it really staggering figure?

#76 | Posted by Phoenix at 2010-02-10 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's all in state statutes and case law. I really don't have time to go research in westlaw for you.

#82 | Posted by taxman

Anyone ever tell you that you know too much to be useful?

It's all in state statutes and case law. -- #82 | Posted by taxman

Really? State statutes and case law include statistics concerning the number and nature of suits in which plaintiffs had to pay defendants' costs?

Try again.

Sure, Rob. And a twice-convicted murderer on trial for murder should have a jury composed only of other twice-convicted murderers.

#89 | POSTED BY PHOENIX

Right, that's exactly what I was saying.

If a case presents evidence that a high school dropout can't understand then they shouldn't be on that jury. OJ Simpson's murder trial comes to mind. He killed two people, the DNA evidence proved it, but the jury was too stupid to understand it.

If a trial of a doctor needs to explain in detail the common complications of a total hip replacement, how is it fair to the doctor that his jury is made up of housewives, forklift drivers and cubicle jockeys?

"Leahy Introduces Bill To Repeal Antitrust Exemption
For Health, Medical Malpractice Insurance Companies

WASHINGTON (Thursday, September 17, 2009) Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday introduced legislation to eliminate a federal antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies."

...it's pretty hard right now to receive any kind of award for a frivolous claim... --

Not when you dealing with the same people who play the lottery every day!

These people have time to waste! They will waste an attorney's time and the doctor's legal time.

"If a trial of a doctor needs to explain in detail the common complications of a total hip replacement, how is it fair to the doctor that his jury is made up of housewives, forklift drivers and cubicle jockeys?"

The same argument could be made with any other profession involved in law suits. It is up to the attorneys to explain things to the jury in a way they can understand. Lawyers do it every day.

#92 | Posted by Phoenix at 2010-02-10 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh you wanted states, I misinterpreted and thought you meant you wanted the legal threshhold considering my post stated that it generally must be found that the plaintiff was aggregious in bringing the suit.

Are you a lawyer, or just pretending to be one?

And a twice-convicted murderer on trial for murder should have a jury composed only of other twice-convicted murderers. -- #89 | POSTED BY PHOENIX

Right, that's exactly what I was saying. -- #93 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Lol. OK.

OJ Simpson...killed two people, the DNA evidence proved it, but the jury was too stupid to understand it. -- #93 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

I'm anything but sympathetic to wife-batterers/killers, but there is no way I could convict anyone on evidence handled by Mark Fuhrman.

BTW, you realize that the correct analogy to allowing only doctors to serve as jurors on malpractice cases would be allowing only wife-batters to serve as jurors on the OJ case, right?

This is getting silly, and I need to get back to work. Ciao --

The same argument could be made with any other profession involved in law suits

that's what I'm saying. I think we need a complete reform of how juries are selected. They should be chosen from pools of citizens who would best understand the evidence.

If you sue me but I can afford a better lawyer, that puts me at an unfair advantage even if I'm guilty/liable. I can hire a better more charismatic lawyer to convince a jury to let me go. But if that jury was more knowledgeable as to what the lawsuit is about, I think it levels the playing field at least somewhat.

Not when you dealing with the same people who play the lottery every day! They will waste an attorney's time and the doctor's legal time. -- #95 | Posted by Eddie

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

But explain... are attorneys enslaved by them because they're not allowed to turn down frivolous cases, or because the lottery-players have money to burn and buy the lawyers off?

I'm anything but sympathetic to wife-batterers/killers, but there is no way I could convict anyone on evidence handled by Mark Fuhrman.

#98 | POSTED BY PHOENIX

So because he said "nigger" a few years before the trial that means he's capable of rearraging the DNA of human blood to match that of OJ Simpson's?

Gotta get running before the second wave of this dumb storm hits... later.

" I think we need a complete reform of how juries are selected. They should be chosen from pools of citizens who would best understand the evidence."

That may be something we should think about doing but it goes beyond the discussion of tort reform for medical malpractice. What do you think of Leahy's bill to end medical malpractice insurers their exemptions from anti-trust laws?

Are you a lawyer, or just pretending to be one? -- #97 | Posted by taxman

Neither. I have two friends who had to assume defendants' costs -- one b/c the organization she sued had very deep pockets and she had neither the time nor the money to keep up with them.

Maybe juries should actually be of our peers. Meaning a jury in a malpractice case can only be made up of other doctors. People who would know the difference between a mistake and a complication and whatnot.

So weird being in 100% agreement with Rob. Is today a sign of the end times or something?

#83 | Posted by truthhurts
because doctors cannot be trusted to police their own. like bankers or worker safety or police etc, self regulation does not work

--------------------
So paying a lawyer 30 million does what?

assures doctors do all they can to assure they provide you with teh best healt care?

I like the concept of defensive medicine. cuase they catch shit they wouldnt otherwise catch.

the problem is not doctors or hospitals or lawyers but blood sucking insurance companies

I have a feeling that this thread is much like the upcoming big meeting on health care the President wants to hold will be like. The Republicans will offer one of their "ideas" and concentrate on just that one issue as if it were the key to solving the overall health care problem when in reality it accounts for only a tiny part of the problem.
Us libs were asked why we oppose tort reform up the thread with the implication it was just because of trial lawyers campaign contributions.
By the same token, it would be interesting to know why so many on the right so vehemently support tort reform when over and over it is shown that it won't significantly lower health care costs. I suspect it is because it is the talking point they have been fed and they will repeat it until fed another.
Why no comments on Leahy's bill to take away malpractice insurance company exemptions from anti-trust laws....how much you want to bet the Republicans won't filibuster it???

I like the concept of defensive medicine. cuase they catch shit they wouldnt otherwise catch.

That is a good part of it, but there is lots of waste due to it as well. Doctors run way more tests than they have to just to protect themselves if they find themselves in court having to answer "did you run another Catsan 6 months later or not?"

I suspect it is because it is the talking point they have been fed and they will repeat it until fed another

I will default to your expertise in repeating talking points and assume you can smell your own kind.

BTW, you realize that the correct analogy to allowing only doctors to serve as jurors on malpractice cases would be allowing only wife-batters to serve as jurors on the OJ case, right?

This is getting silly, and I need to get back to work. Ciao --

#99 | Posted by Phoenix

You're right!

And there is the problem with trying to force a single-minded Reform bill like ObamaCare.

I agree with Danni on some things, but she is not seeing the full picture.

Everyone who is pushing ObamaCare is seeing it from one side, the welfare of the patient.

Which is stupid because in the US we have the best care in the world (but we pay for it)

We are all correct in one way or another,

allowing only doctors to serve as jurors on malpractice cases would be allowing only wife-batters to serve as jurors on the OJ case, right?

Only doctors? Yes, but there should be a medical adviser to juries on medical malpractice suits who can explain medical procedures to them unbiasedly.

In Florida, they tried a panel that would pre-determine the merits of a case. It was made up of doctors, clergy, lawyers, law makers, etc. It worked in reducing costs and suits in Florida, but the trial attorneys sued and got it banned as "limiting access to the courts."

"I agree with Danni on some things, but she is not seeing the full picture."

Who is???
I think I get the full picture as well as anyone else who posts here, better than most.
And Kanrei, look at my posts and then honeslty tell me I just post talking points. Nonsense.

And Kanrei, look at my posts and then honeslty tell me I just post talking points.

I did and I did.

It will work, it will cost you less money and will provide you with better care.

PERIOD

#59 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-10 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Which is exactly why we have FEDEX, UPS and other alternatives to the government system which used to have a monopoly on package delivery.

USPS - going bankrupt
SS - going bankrupt
NASA - programs being cut due to failures
Education - graduation rates always going down
Medicaid - waste, waste and more waste

Please truthhurts, tell us which government agency does it better, cheaper and "works"? The Air and Space museum is cool though. Apart from that....

I think I get the full picture as well as anyone else who posts here, better than most.

#114 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-10 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, and here is your version of the "full picture"

Yeah Elcid, being against monopolies is Communism.

"I agree with Danni on some things, but she is not seeing the full picture."

Who is???
I think I get the full picture as well as anyone else who posts here, better than most.
And Kanrei, look at my posts and then honeslty tell me I just post talking points. Nonsense.

#114 | Posted by danni

Danni,

Your posts (over the last 6 months) have that anti-doctor twinge. Your rants on tort reform have mostly been about worrying about your right to sue being taken away.

Yeah Elcid, being against monopolies is Communism.

#118 | Posted by danni

See? This is where I side with you, Danni.

being against monopolies is an American idea

Healthcare reform...
What is one of the real problem?
Personal Safety
Personal lifestyle
Personal Choices.

Due to these factors increasing risks, we need to turn to insurance companies. Once insurance began, doctor's began to perform more and more risky suregeries that may not necessary need to be done, but would be paid for by insurance. They take a risk, get paid more, but risk losing much more.

It all comes back to personal responsibility. Small things should not be covered by insurance, rather paid in cash. Insurance intself causes the prices to rise, but then again, people continue to pay for it.

If you have a vendetta against insurance companies, I suggest you stop using them and begin campaigning for better personal responsibility toward risks and health.

A majority is not the insurance companies fault, they were clever and cornerd a market, the market is upheld by people who refuse to take personal responsibility.

We have only ourselves to blame.

I have a question for Danni, you keep throwing up the numbers for the compensation for mistakes under tort reform, and say that that amount of money will not be good enough to fix the problem.

Will any amount of money be good enough to fix the mistake that has caused the problem?

How much?

"Your posts (over the last 6 months) have that anti-doctor twinge. Your rants on tort reform have mostly been about worrying about your right to sue being taken away."

My rants are mostly because tort reform is just a distraction from real health care reform supported COINCIDENTALLY by medical malpractice insurance companies protected by exemptions from anti-trust laws as are their buddies the health insurance companies. My contention is that tort refrom benefits insurance companies, not doctors, not patients.

"Will any amount of money be good enough to fix the mistake that has caused the problem?"

Nothing can restore a leg or other body part destroyed but it is an insult to have a cap on awards at $250,000.

Not when you dealing with the same people who play the lottery every day! They will waste an attorney's time and the doctor's legal time. -- #95 | Posted by Eddie

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

But explain... are attorneys enslaved by them because they're not allowed to turn down frivolous cases, or because the lottery-players have money to burn and buy the lawyers off?

#101 | Posted by Phoenix

Nevermind. You missed it.

My rants are mostly because tort reform is just a distraction from real health care reform supported COINCIDENTALLY by medical malpractice insurance companies protected by exemptions from anti-trust laws as are their buddies the health insurance companies. My contention is that tort refrom benefits insurance companies, not doctors, not patients.

#124 | Posted by danni

No, you're wrong. Tort reform is a legitimate reason, among others, why costs are rising. If the Republicans are not willing to bring down the Anti-trust exemptions, then the American people will run them out too.

But, Obama and the Dem Leaders in Congress MUST consider this along with the other Republican ideas.

And, stop lying about Rupublicans having no ideas.

That's pure bullshit!

So what amount is not an insult? Why do you need physical money at all? Would care suffice? Would a job relocation suffice? What is it that will sufficiently take away the pain from the accident?

I would like a number from you, you lose your leg, what number is sufficient to take away the pain and insult?

"Pain and Suffering" is an abstract concept invented by lawyers who get a percent of the winnings and found a way to play sympathy to inflate that number.

I like the concept of defensive medicine. cuase they catch shit they wouldnt otherwise catch.

No, that's not what defensive medicine is. Here I'll give you an example of defensive medicine:

When we were back in philly there was a surgeon who does ACL repairs and other knee scope surgeries, and typically would send people home the same day. Its a quick and easy surgery. One patient though was a worst case scenario, and a week after her surgery a clot went to her lungs and sadly she didn't make it. During the trial the lawyer pressed this doctor on why the patient wasn't admitted, I'm not sure of the outcome of the trial, but the doctor from that moment on admitted all of his scope patients overnight. Now what good does that do? The patient that caused this change died a week later. Any patient who is the "worst-case" can die a week later, whether they were admitted overnight or not. It doesn't help you find anything, its just so a lawyer can't say, "Well why didn't you do x."

Same thing on a less expensive case of a doctor seeing there is nothing wrong on an x-ray, but says, "Well we better get an MRI too so some lawyer can't fuck us over." Happens daily and its really expensive.

Here is another example of "defensive medicine"

You go to a doctor with a cough. The doctor is positive it is nothing more than a flu, but has to run a catscan just to make sure it is nothing serious. The doctor who runs the catscan finds nothing, but has to protect himself and recommend another catscan in six months to see if anything changes.

Six months later, another catscan is done, but the doctor, still needed to protect himself, recommends another in one year.

The main doctor does not see the purpose in this and tells the patient all is well.

5 years later, the patient develops a cyst, it becomes cancer and the patient dies. At the trial, the doctor is asked "why didn't you perform the catscan after a year?"

Suit lost.

Exactly. Defensive medicine doesn't aid in the diagnosis at all. Its only about preventing what the lawyer will likely argue in court.

So weird being in 100% agreement with Rob. Is today a sign of the end times or something?

#106 | POSTED BY KANREI

Don't worry... I'll be back to making fun of people with HIV soon enough (especially if they don't have health insurance)

"If the Republicans are not willing to bring down the Anti-trust exemptions, then the American people will run them out too."

Uh-huh riiiight. The Republicans will definitely filibuster this bill and you watch, there will be no one except Democrats objecting.

"No, you're wrong. Tort reform is a legitimate reason, among others, why costs are rising."

If it were then it wouldn't be so easy to find study after study showing it isn't, and scroll up the thread and find me the studies linked by advocates of tort reform which show it will cut costs significantly. It's a distraction. Look at how many posts have been dedicated to just tort reform on this thread about the fact that 63% of Americans want serious health care reform.

How much money relieves the insult Danni? I need a number. What will suffice for your lost leg? What amount of money will heal your ills?

Another question for you Danni, if you have a terrible and communicable disease, and it gets spread to your doctor, can he sue you in order to cover his pain and suffering, loss of work, potential loss of life, and inconvenience?

Would you be alright with that, even though it was an "accident."

Side note, Danni's link and info, false, its all smoke, bad data from a one sided liberal think tank, that has her view. typical. your facts are in error.. wake up. please stop taking what Danni says as fact, its all twisted by a bush hating libtard socialist idiot.

Uh-huh riiiight. The Republicans will definitely filibuster this bill and you watch, there will be no one except Democrats objecting.

#134 | Posted by danni

Which bill? The one you linked to about submitting legistlation to reverse the Anti-trust that Health Insuarance companies enjoy?

If they do, then we will make a judgement at that time.

I don't think they will because they are already on the hook for suggesting this go away.

Very interesting point Danni. Let's see what happens.

If they fight this bill, then the Tea Party is right about them!!

It's a distraction. Look at how many posts have been dedicated to just tort reform on this thread about the fact that 63% of Americans want serious health care reform.

#134 | Posted by danni

Danni, you brought it up first in your post #10.

You made a ridiculous claim and we all jumped you!

$250k for a leg is ridiculous! I'm with you on that, but it's not the Conservative stance on Health Care Reform.

This shit belongs to the neocons of the republican Party. Let's clarify that. But, the Tea Party movement is exposing that. Why can't you see that?

Among independents, 56 percent see the Republicans in Congress as too unbending and 50 percent say so of the president;

And a poll where 50% of Americans blame Obama, but that is also ignored.

Of course healthcare reform is necessary.... but the way to go about it is the best ideas from BOTH parties...not just ramming random crap down the throats of the American people with a complete disregard to the expense, bureacracy, and other detrimental factors involved.

Idiots. the lot of them.

Right, they do, but they want nothing to do with this monstrosity....

"You made a ridiculous claim and we all jumped you!"

So far none of you have shown that it is a major contributor to the cost of health care but many posts link to articles showing it isn't. So you can jump all you want but it changes nothing. It is, like I said before, a conveneint distraction that sounds good to people who don't want to bother to research it. It gives Republicans something to claim is their "solution" to health care when really they don't want to change anything.

The Congressional Budget Office found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. According to the CBO, medical malpractice costs are not a big part of health costs; in fact, they amounted to less than 2 percent of overall health care costs.

#15

So far none of you have shown that it is a major contributor to the cost of health care but many posts link to articles showing it isn't. So you can jump all you want but it changes nothing. It is, like I said before, a conveneint distraction that sounds good to people who don't want to bother to research it. It gives Republicans something to claim is their "solution" to health care when really they don't want to change anything.

#143 | Posted by danni

You haven't linked to anything factual either and that's the point here.

The other reason is that once I prove you wrong, you disappear!

But, here's a good article for you to read.

The Congressional Budget Office found no statistically significant difference in per capita health care spending between states with and without limits on malpractice torts. According to the CBO, medical malpractice costs are not a big part of health costs; in fact, they amounted to less than 2 percent of overall health care costs.

#15

#144 | Posted by Corky

This post completely misses the point.

Corky, It's not the payouts, it's the cost of Defensive Medicine and legal costs of the Doctor having to defended himself against lawsuits that are frivolous.

70% of these lawsuits are thrown out of court. Does the doctor incur any legal costs?

You need to be asking these kinds of questions. If you're not then you are part of the problem.

"It's not the payouts, it's the cost of Defensive Medicine and legal costs of the Doctor having to defended himself against lawsuits that are frivolous. "

Except that's supposed to disappear in states that already have tort reform. The fact it hasn't suggests doctors aren't going to stop practicing defensive medicine regardless, so the claim tort reform is the answer is patently incorrect.

Republicans something to claim is their "solution" to health care when really they don't want to change anything.

#143 | Posted by danni

Again, Danni, the reason you are constantly getting jumped is that you keep repeating the same lies and won't acknowledge that the people you are talking about are neocons, the part of the party that the Tea Party movement is attacking.

You won't acknowledge it because you are afraid. You ridicule the Tea Party movement mostly for the same reasons I ridicule Obama and the Dems leaders in Congress calling them Socialists.

You ridicule the Tea Party movement mostly for the same reasons I ridicule Obama and the Dems leaders in Congress calling them Socialists.

#148 | Posted by Eddie

Fear!

-Except that's supposed to disappear in states that already have tort reform. The fact it hasn't suggests doctors aren't going to stop practicing defensive medicine regardless, so the claim tort reform is the answer is patently incorrect.

Try not to be so rational, Dan.

You are speaking Greek to Edward.

Except that's supposed to disappear in states that already have tort reform.

And how do you know defensive medicine disappears if it can't really be tracked before the tort reform?

I'm not saying its a cure all for health care reform, but I know first hand that it is a major cost. You still have to modernize the system, stop the crappy practices of insurers, find a way to get the uninsured a way of paying for their own coverage.

But Tort Reform should be in the equation, and Obama's lip service to it (twice now) isn't a serious plan that he has any intention of following through on. And its because of the amount of money that trial lawyers give to the DNC.

"You won't acknowledge it because you are afraid."

Eddie, I am not afraid of the TEa Party movement. I just think they are confused. They are angry about the economic crisis this country is in but can't (more likely won't) consider how it got this way or who caused it to be this way. The Tea Party folks listen to their Fox News and block out any contrary information and never figure out that the people who run Fox News are corporatists with a very corporate agenda. Tea Partiers have good reason to be angry about things in this country, they are unfortunately though, mad at the wrong people. Many of the same things I want to happen in this country are the same things the Tea partiers want to happen but, sorry, voting Republican and demonizing Democrats and Obama just gives power to the very people who created this economic disaster.

"But Tort Reform should be in the equation, and Obama's lip service to it (twice now) isn't a serious plan that he has any intention of following through on."

You state that as if it is a fact, it is your opinion, many of us do not want tort reform, do not want our rights limited to save doctors a few bucks on medical malpractice insurance which, in the end, tort reform hasn't saved them anyway in the states where such laws have been passed. The only beneficiary of tort reform so far has been the malpractice insurance companies who have enjoyed greatly increased profits.
Now notice my post and then count how many posts after it will go by before someone comes back with the exact same arguments again. BECAUSE IT ISN'T A REAL REFORM IT'S A DISTRACTION FROM REAL REFORMS!

You state that as if it is a fact, it is your opinion

What that it should be in the bill, or that Obama actually has no interest in tort reform and is just paying lip service to the GOP hoping no one will notice that he cares about as much to work with them, as they do with him?

If all tort reform does is help the Malpractice Insurance providers then maybe they should be included in this bill for reform as well. Malpractice is an obscene cost on doctors and Obama should have seriously gone after them too, but to do that he also would have had to have been serious about tort reform, which he isn't because lawyers would cut their donations.

As to tort reform only cutting a few percentage points. That still means it cuts costs. And if you guys were serious about fixing healthcare I'd think you'd want to cut costs everywhere that it is needless and adding to the problem.

Rob, I posted earlier a link to Patrick Leahey's bill to take away malpractice insurer's exemption from anti-trust laws which would eventually make them ahve to actually compete with each other. As it is now they are raking in huge profits and paying out little, it isn't so much tort reform that is needed as it is insurance reform, IMHO.

Tea Partiers have good reason to be angry about things in this country, they are unfortunately though, mad at the wrong people.
#152 | Posted by danni

You keep saying they listen to Fox News. No they don't! How do you even know what they listen to, you don't even know who they are! If you did, you'd have far more respect for them.

How can you say they're agry with the wrong people? They're angry with George Bush. They are angry with the neocons and the current Dem leaders in Washington.

Remember the "Stimulus Package"? It was the wrong thing to do. You have to let the bad things fail, you can't spend your way out of a depression!

Anyway this is getting way off topic.

I just wanted to get you to wake up to other ideas. Ideas that will work.

#24

Eddie, the question was simple and answered:

voting Republican and demonizing Democrats and Obama just gives power to the very people who created this economic disaster.

#152 | Posted by danni

Let's not get into that, because you don't know what "created" the economic disaster. You think it was the war and the greed for oil. The economic disaster was coming; all the war did was to postpone it for a little while. And then Obama pushed it off even longer with his stimulus package.

The whole idea of us living off of money printed out of thin air has got to end sometime!

So, be careful who you are blaming it on because the next President will be blaming it on the last administration.

#24

Eddie, the question was simple and answered:

voices.washingtonpost.com

#157 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

You idiot! LOL!

55% of Republicans enjoy watching their premiums go up 39% every year?

The poll is bullshit and you are full of it.

GET OVER IT! LOL!!!

I am not afraid of the TEa Party movement. I just think they are confused. They are angry about the economic crisis this country is in but can't (more likely won't) consider how it got this way or who caused it to be this way

You should be afraid of the Teap Party movement because they are on a roll. Let's see in November if you are afraid of them when they stop Obama's agenda

Let's not get into that, because you don't know what "created" the economic disaster. You think it was the war and the greed for oil. The economic disaster was coming; all the war did was to postpone it for a little while.

The wars postponed nothing---they were part of the problem--a major part---billions of dollars for absolutely nothing, costing thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. We borrowed from China to finance the war. A major part of our economic problems stem from these wars

And then Obama pushed it off even longer with his stimulus package.

You mean Bush's stimulus package. FTFY

The whole idea of us living off of money printed out of thin air has got to end sometime!

That was Bush's plan---Obama is getting us back to reality.

So, be careful who you are blaming it on because the next President will be blaming it on the last administration.

Obama will be the next President, and there won't be the problems left to him created by Bush---or they will be greatly minimized and forgotten at the end of Obama's second term. Republicans are already trying to blame Obama for Bush's screw ups. Republicans like yourself. It won't wash.

#158 | Posted by Eddie at 2010-02-10 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

ANY poll whose results the right disagree with is 'bullshit'.

The pollsters miles off anyone else's results are Rasmussen. Hard to consider them credible. Anyone else's, with strict methodology and live calling can be considered in the ballpark.

How about you simply get rid of insurance companies. Start taking person responsibility and keeping ourselves healthy.

#161 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

BOob!

learn!

Read!

Study Congressional History, starting in 1913.

Then get back to me.

I'll be ignoring you until you are educated.

ANY poll whose results the right disagree with is 'bullshit'.

#162 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Yes, exactly!

Again!!! Are you saying that 55% of the Republicans are comfortable with their premiums going up 39% a year?

Answer that and we can continue. Other than that you are full of shit!

How about you simply get rid of insurance companies. Start taking person responsibility and keeping ourselves healthy.

#163 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

What a concept? Are you following Ron Paul?

Again!!! Are you saying that 55% of the Republicans are comfortable with their premiums going up 39% a year?

EDDIE

I said what I typed.
A poll of only registered Republicans about their premium increases would be a good idea though.

A poll of only registered Republicans about their premium increases would be a good idea though.

sure. and also ask them about denied claims too.

If you did that there, you would find a gigantic difference between the parties on those answers.

which means both sides are full of shit...driven by 100% ideology rather than facts.

There is no doubt you would lie in the poll as well.

Yep. Republicans want their Premiums increased. That's what happens when you cross this rammed down out throats plan, concocted with back room deals. Do these idiots ever look at their posts before hitting the Publish Comment button?

"As to tort reform only cutting a few percentage points. That still means it cuts costs. And if you guys were serious about fixing healthcare I'd think you'd want to cut costs everywhere that it is needless and adding to the problem."

Forgive me if I gave the impression tort reform isn't needed. It is. My point was pretending it's the silver bullet is just that: pretending.

"Yep. Republicans want their Premiums increased."

You're right: no one wants a repeat of a decade where health costs for the average worker outpace inflation at a 4-1 ratio. A better question would be: what are the Republicans' plans to stem medical inflation over the next decade or two?

So far, they've suggested tort reform (not enough on its own) and allowing competition across state lines, as long as the issuing state can set the guidelines, which is a recipe for disaster. Hardly an "alternative" when they're suggesting the equivalent of throwing water on a grease fire.

Don't take my (socialist) Medicare...

70% never wanted the fucking fraudsters bailed out

65% want out of Iraq

..the 63% that want socialist Healthcare would be 95% if they weren't so snowed by Rethuglican bullshit talking points.

Our country is being destroyed one job at a time by superrich fraudsters that buy our Government, one bill (which they write) at a time.

Washington takes little to no account of the best interests of the public or their opinion. Our so called Democracy is a fraud. So is our Judicial System, especially our partisan, Constitutionally an ethically corrupt Supreme Court.

"So far, they've suggested tort reform (not enough on its own) and allowing competition across state lines, as long as the issuing state can set the guidelines, which is a recipe for disaster." Danforth

"More than that, but I am sure you don't agree with any of it."

How are you sure?

I've stated quite clearly and often, I'm against the current Dem health care bill.

Are you just pulling shit out of your ass?

AM,

Your "summary" link doesn't work. Please post again.

"Let's not get into that, because you don't know what "created" the economic disaster."

OK Eddie, quite simply you don't know what you are talking about and just pretend that you have a clue. Your act doesn't fool anyone.

"How about you simply get rid of insurance companies. Start taking person responsibility and keeping ourselves healthy."

Have you ever attempted surgery on yourself???
Every time I try it I fall asleep during the anesthesia stage and don't accomplish anything.

I like the Democrats Plan. If you can make it into the US you have free Health Care. The Republican Plan is just as appealing. The only people making money off of this are the Lobbists and their lawyers. Makes me want to puke.

Have you ever attempted surgery on yourself???
Every time I try it I fall asleep during the anesthesia stage and don't accomplish anything.

Okay....THAT'S funny!

Yes Danni, witty point, but just because their is not insurance does not mean that there is not surgery. There are other means to handle things like that. Better health, less surgery, less unnecessary surgery etc. The less surgery the less you will hear about Tort reform.

There can be other means than insurance to pay for the surgical procedures when needed. Tax credit based on the time that was missed for the surgery and the extent of its impact or something of that nature would be helpful, and most likely better spend than if the monies went to an insurance company.

"There can be other means than insurance to pay for the surgical procedures when needed"

This is just an educated guess...but you've never looked over a set of medical bills after a loved one has died of cancer, have you?

"Tax credit based on the time that was missed for the surgery and the extent of its impact or something of that nature would be helpful"

You're talking about a few thousand dollars (at most) to pay for a quarter-million dollar tab.

If you are speaking of cancer treatement, however, it is the left that says the insurance companies are the ones that are causing the prices of drugs and procedures to rise is that not correct?

If you take the insurance companies out of the way, you can being to adequately handle the pricing issue that will surely be a hindrance on either sides attempt to regulate the system to any degree.

I know the cost of cancer. It is expenseive to pay for yes, however, does it have to be... not necessarily.

Prices are over inflated for many procedures, and as you guys have stated, the defensive medicine is also an aspect that causes more procedures to be done than need to be done, of which must be paid for even though they are useless.

It just seems that if people want to have better healthcare, it would be wise to take better care of their personal health. Healthcare will be far less expensive when you are for the most part healthy.

Are things going to happen, sure, but again, something else other than an insurance company could be set up. Even if we set up a system of no interest loan, that will impact will and estate in the event of the person dying before paying the bill.

"however, it is the left that says the insurance companies are the ones that are causing the prices of drugs and procedures to rise is that not correct?"

No...facts are saying that.

"If you take the insurance companies out of the way, you can being to adequately handle the pricing issue that will surely be a hindrance on either sides attempt to regulate the system to any degree."

I'm sure that has an English translation...somewhere.

"something else other than an insurance company could be set up."

Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

In just about every economic transaction in America we have a buyer and a seller, but for health care we have a buyer, a middle person (insurance company), and the seller. This middle person adds cost, and complexity to say the least. Then you factor in the lawyers and all the other stuff and you have one big kludge.

The way we purchase health care is part of this problem, that is why some in Washington want to tackle the Cadilac plans.

One of the nice things about a Republic is that the Majority cannot overrun the Minority. That it is the "Rule of Law" rather than the "Rule of the Mob."

Or as Jefferson is attributed as saying:

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Just because more people at a moment in time want something, it doesn't give them the right to make it so.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."

Where do you dig this stuff up?

People would still get paid, and costs would drop substantially.

#74 | POSTED BY ROB_THE_A_HOLE

I don't think the costs would drop at all..premiums didn't drop at all in texas and California when tort reform was implemented as a test run under Bush.

Premiums remained the same and rose.

This whole tort reform thing is a red herring. The president has already put it on the table for negotiation as a sacrifice for the next new bill since current legislation is stalled. The whole republican fiasco with boner not wanting it televised highlights that reform is not desired at all by the right.

There is a lot innuendo about how deep in the pocket trial lawyers are in democrats pocket, I would like to see how deep the insurance lobby is in the right. I would bet very...

"63% Want Congress to Pursue Health Reform"

The other 37% want everyone in Congress to pursue another career.

#187 | Posted by Legio
This whole tort reform thing is a red herring. The president has already put it on the table for negotiation as a sacrifice for the next new bill since current legislation is stalled. The whole republican fiasco with boner not wanting it televised highlights that reform is not desired at all by the right.

There is a lot innuendo about how deep in the pocket trial lawyers are in democrats pocket, I would like to see how deep the insurance lobby is in the right. I would bet very...
--------------------
The Insurance industry gives to both parties, the trial lawyers give very little to the Republicans.

To say that premiums in Texas didn't go down after tort reform was passed does not mean it didn't have an affect on cost. There is a host of factors that add to the cost of medicine, and if those factors went up(which they did), they could out pace any savings from tort reform.
Also medical inflation in Texas is lower than in most states, is that due to Tort Reform? Maybe. Another point; which state ranks high when it comes to Doctors opening up shop? Texas. Is that due to Tort Reform? According to the doctors it was the number one reason.

Tort Reform is just one step not the only cure for health care inflation.

"Let's not get into that, because you don't know what "created" the economic disaster."

OK Eddie, quite simply you don't know what you are talking about and just pretend that you have a clue. Your act doesn't fool anyone.

#176 | Posted by danni

God DAMN!!!! I am sick of this ignorance!

You insult me because you choose to ignore the truth?

We are all educated adults here! Why don't you know this?

I know that the popular belief for the economic downturn is that Bush spent too much. That has little to do with a downturn and more with holding up a natural collasp of the world economy. It has everything to do with oil production!

You see, Danni, when you print money and put that expansion of the worlds reserve currency into the World's money supply for decades and decades, that expansion has a capacity.

Think about it!

You can't expand the money supply and print money out of thin air without maintaining the foundation of the scheme! The dollar is backed by oil production! If that is iterrupted, the dollar collaspes!

Does it make sense now why Europe hates us? Their Euro gets nothing out of this arrangement.

I'm not proud to know that the US is expanding influence around the world through the dollar! And will invade and occupy other countries just to keep the empire going...

So, if you want to live in ignorance and be told lies over and over just so that you can continue to feel adequate, go for it.

But don't drag me down with you!

To say that premiums in Texas didn't go down after tort reform was passed does not mean it didn't have an affect on cost. There is a host of factors that add to the cost of medicine, and if those factors went up(which they did), they could out pace any savings from tort reform.
Also medical inflation in Texas is lower than in most states, is that due to Tort Reform? Maybe. Another point; which state ranks high when it comes to Doctors opening up shop? Texas. Is that due to Tort Reform? According to the doctors it was the number one reason.
Tort Reform is just one step not the only cure for health care inflation.

#189 | POSTED BY 90C2CAB

It is on record that the premium cost went up on average in parallel to the national average..so no net affect for the end customer the consumer.

This site and the article are proof that the two party system sucks bad.... Total cluster f.

When a surgeon cuts off your leg and it turns out to be the wrong one I hope $250,000 compensates you for your loss. It wouldn't compensate me.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-10 10:39 AM

and of course danni misses the mark again, that is NOT a limit for special damages..special damages are out of pocket damages and do not have a limit, what it will cost for an artifical leg, your reduced earning capacity...

Start by removing the state barriers ensuring statewide insurance company monopolies, and see where that takes you. Then, do some sensible tort reform and see where that takes you...the closer you get toward a model similar to car insurance, the happier everybody will be and the cheaper the insurance will get....

Deregulation and removing consumer protections hardly help the consumers. I see it being a windfall for the insurance companies. You have not mentioned 1 thing to help more people get insured. Who will force these companies to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions?

#191 | Posted by Legio
It is on record that the premium cost went up on average in parallel to the national average..so no net affect for the end customer the consumer.
-----------------

Regardless of what the elitists such as Rush Limbaugh say about health care.....the USA can't go on paying twice what other countries pay with worse outcomes, and with 45 million uncovered (but still partially covered by taxpayers), just so elitists and corporations and CEOs profit.

Health care is not about profit. If we are the wealthiest nation on Earth (as some fools still proclaim) it should be about a right and about what is right.

I don't feel the government should run health care...

That being said, I don't think a root canal should cost $1000.00 either. Medical costs have skyrocketed everywhere. Average Dr. office visit runs over $300.00.

Something has to give. I lean right but I don't think anyone who has worked all their life should have to worry about medical bills. My mom is 74 and she spends over $1000.00 per month on meds... Needs to change if you ask me.

Socialized health care seems like a good concept but allow a Civilian organization to run it. This government would only run it into the ground in a decade.

Put all the plans out there and let people choose what they want.

Have civilians serve on the board for a max of three two year terms and it may run.

IF we dumped the income tax concept that we are currently using and just go to a flat %10 tax for ALL, This government wouldn't be borrowing money from anyone. They would have so much money that we could afford things like that.

Then Yes Health care could be free for all because we could afford it.

FAR FROM true and proven repeatedly. Malpractice JUDGMENTS account for a tiny amount of health care costs, but malpractice insurance is a large cost and drives the costs of patient's care. Many doctors in Miami are practicing without the protection to try and save their patients money.

If that is the case, why is tort reform the answer? The answer should be medical malpractice insurace reform.

Fed, i think it's because of the LARGE settlements not the number of JUDGEMENTS that drive the cost up.

Universal Single Payer.