With the finger of the public on the pulse of healthcare reform, Americans have been inundated with news shows, talk shows, reports, townhall meetings and blogs regarding the Obama administrations proposed health care reform plan.
As should be expected when a plan of this magnitude is proposed, many arguments have been made and many questions have been raised regarding the specifics of the plan. I have heard many questions the most prevailent being: How are we going to pay for a plan of this scope? Who will make the decisions that effect my health and quality of life? What will happen to my private insurance? And the list goes on and on.
Every news anchor, talk show host, political pundit and politician has weighed in with thier resons why we must take a closer look at the plan before pushing it through the congress. "It will add to the debt and increase the deficit". "Who will want to pay for a private plan if there is a free one?" Bureaucrats will be making health decisions instead of doctors." "Private insurance companies will go out of business.", and that doesn't even touch the surface of the arguments I have seen regarding the plan and the concerns it raises. All good points and cause for taking a closer look but I had yet to hear one very important question regarding the plan. That is until today.
As I was making the 8 hour trip home from my class reunion this afternoon I finally heard one man address the issue that I had yet to hear. I did not catch his name or even catch what show he was on, but what I did catch as I was hitting the scan button on my radio were the 2 words I had been waiting to hear. Tort reform.
The backers of the Presidents hetlth care reform plan have thier own ideas as to why our health care costs are high. Most however lead to the word they love to throw around when they don't do thier homework, "Greed". Greedy doctors, greedy insurance companies, greedy employers. All trying to make billions of dollars off the poor and un-insured. Is there greed in the world? Yes there is. But is it a valid excuse as to why the costs are so high? No it is not. If those who love the word "Greed" want to lay that label at the feet of anyone when it comes to the high cost of medical care they need to research more deeply and lay it where it needs to be. At the feet of those who allow out of control lawsuit awards to prevail.
Until there is tort reform there can be no health care reform. Lets face it, one good thing about the proposal is that more Americans will be covered and able to go to the doctor. But with that comes the chance that more lawsuits will be filed. With that comes the chance that more lawyers will manipulate the system to get multi-million dollars awards for thier clients and a larger percentage for themselves. With that comes the chance that premiums for malpractice insurance (already $40,000 to $60,000 annually)will go up as well. How many doctors will be able to stay in business if that happens? Far fewer that we already have, and with more Americans seeking care that is a recipie for disaster.
So as the battle rages on regarding health care reform we have to ask ourselves, are we asking the right questions and is the reform covering all aspects of why the costs are high to begin with? Or are we simply laying the blame and playing the greed card at the feet of those who directly set the costs without thinking about those who are indirectly involved in the price of our health care.
One thing is for sure, the cost of this proposal will be high. But not as high as it will be if it does not address tort reform first.
|
|
| |
|
|
OK bye.
Vikings are playing gotta love pre-season!
Nope they should be phased out. Sorry but their you have. Anyways I am out.
Yes, I know it seems counter-intuitive, but when you look at all the options, it's the only effective way. Currently, all the different federal plans and state programs and fed/state/county collaborations and county programs - they all need to be consolidated under one federal program. Kinda like Social Security. Excepti I wouldn't even involve counties except in an oversight function.
As for opening my mind thats the first thing liberals always babale about when they are the ones who in fact are closed minded. We have tried giving the government 65% of the helathcare industry and it made a mess why give it 100%? thats going around in circles.
O wow the USPS will only lose what? 5 billion maybe? lol thats still a hole. Plus the larger lesson from USPS is that when the government gets a monoploy on something it wrecks it and will require vast amounts of money to keep it afloat their is no way that your plan will work and not lead to less people entering the healthcare field and that leads to fewer specailists and doctors plus less research. Add to it allowing more compeition among insurance companies would work to reduce the cost as right now the government only favors a few big companies. I have laid out my reform bill via my blog which I stand by as it would mean more freedom between the Doctor and patient as it should be.
EROCK. Please open your mind. I'm going to tie-in your concerns about the USPS and a national Health Insurance plan. From what I understand, because of growth in package revenue, and a nice break in fuel costs, the post office is likely to lose less than the worst case $7 billion. At any rate, if they could shed their $5.8 billion per year obligation to provide health insurnace for it's retirees, they would be in much better shape. And so would GM, and so would, Ford, and DuPont, and General Mills and every single employer in the nation. State budgets would blossom without the bloated residual costs of retiree health benefits. Health costs are strangling the employers and the employees.
And National Health Insurance plan is NOT inevitable are u God that u can see the future? Reform maybe invetiable but a Big Government plan is not. Their is a differance.
right because then Doctors wont enter the field with out incentive and plus their is a reason a heart surgery or brain operation is expensive a specialist does it! how many people can actually operate on the brain? Exactly. Hence your KISS plan would end up being complicated as Doctors look at their charts to see the price. Plus as Doctors wont be making as much or nurses I would expect people not to enter the job market as much. So you would add a new problem way to go.
Erock a National Health Insurance plan is inevitable. All I'm saying is let's do it the Republican way and make everybody responisble and give everyone a stake in it by making EVERYONE help pay for it.
Erock if TO can't play, there are covenents in the contract and insurance.
Eerock I would certainly set limits to what doctors can charge per hour on the program, and also limit what we would pay for certain procedures, and probably constantly set guidelines, and generally administer it accordingly. I know you hate the government Erock, but when left to do it on their own, the government is exceptionally good at paying money. That's all they'll be doing. I adhere to the KISS principle - K.eep It S.imple S.tupid
and waste that money? what a joker.
Smashey, luckily it looks like TO has a bad toe. I don't see him ever recovering from that. Ever. He's a receiver - his toes and fingers are his most important asset. I'm sure TO and Dallas both knew about it. Hey TO if you play - welcome aboard, if you can't - then they'll bench him.
Nope its not. Given that a more taxes will hurt the US Economy and that we face a 11.6 trillion dollar debt. Add to it what are u going to do when the program demands more money as the hight cost of it will come appearent? Will u dictate how much money doctors can charge? I am sorry but your plan will lead to a UK style healthcare that is facing massive cost issues.
In order to meet the goal of assuring every American citizen and permenant resident in the most effective, efficient, fair and the least costly, I am prepared, as President, to excert the federal government's emminent domain over the states and take over the health insurance of all of our citizens. It will be funded in such a way as to make the lower income people pay a fair share through mandatory copays and a 4% National Sales Tax. All substantial existing federal medical insurance programs would cease to exist on "turnover day" and a new 3% payroll tax would replace the 2.5% HITS tax for medicare. Employers would be levied a 4% EBITDA tax (business earnings income tax), but would no longer have any commitment(s) what-so-ever in the health insurance of their employees. ...... and I cvan now answer questions if anyone is interested... there's alot more to it and it's designed to work.
The bills will win a few games then the Patriots will own their asses and TO will cry like a baby and yell and that will be the end of that.
As you are clearly missing the point I don't see what u have to offer other then more government socialist ideas like Imagine. I want affordable healthcare BUT IF I WAS to write such a statement it would not then end up meaning the exact opposite as the House bill does.
Look at FNG going out on a limb with the Bills. T.O. will, as he has always done, yell Trent Edwards into a hole and they will falter in the end. T.O. is a cancer and if he wasn't happy with Romo or McNabb, who were on better teams, he's really gonna hate Edwards.
Well, Erock, since you don't want to see affordable health care for all Americans and bring health care costs down, I don't know how to further debate you on the issue, because we simply disagree with the whole premise. I believe we have a reached a point in our country's development where any American citizen or legal resident has the right to see a doctor when he aor she should and it should be regardless of your financial situation.
By the way, I've been reading and watching a bit about the Buffalo Bills team in training. It seems Edwards has proven himself fairly adept at a continuous and fairly potent no-huddle attack. They have practiced essentially nothing else and it looks like they are going to use a no-huddle pretty much exclusively. Therefore, I hereby predict the Buffalo Bills will, one way or another, make to the playoffs this year.
Well as the bill's purpose is defeated by the bill no.
Well, of course. It merely states the purpose of the legislation but surely you can say whether or not you agree with the PURPOSE of the bill.
Its a vauge sentance.
How about the first sentence in the bill, can we agree that it is a worthy goal?
"HR 3200 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3200
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the
growth in health care spending, and for other purposes. "
O wow you like the feel good part? LOL thats easy to like the problem starts when u start reading the complexity of the bill and once u see the price tag which is only going to go up you know its crap.
Your plan would be trusting the government not to fuck up yet another program. That is good for a few laughs. Plus I can see people suing to opt out so they don't need to pay taxes and pay for their private company that they like.
OK, Erock, I know. I get it. You don't like this legislation and I don't either, but I have to admit, I like the part that says that the object of the bill is to assure everyone has reasonable accesss to affordable health care.
I am just tired of liberals like you attacking anyone who dares to question the government. Reid Pelosi, Obama, and Company are hypocrits and liars. Obama fucked this all up with out any help from the common peopel are who are saying in poll after poll slow the fuck down. Maybe Obama should fucking listen.
Smashey - the throwing the health insurance Cos under the bus, my plan would pay them for economic damage and loss of income, etc. using existing health trusts and allowing them to keep their cash-in-hand on turnover day. It would all be arbitrated accordingly, of course.
Right fail to win an agrument and attack someone huh FNG? U taking a line out of Imagine's play book now? lol sorry but im sober so nice try.
I gotta hand it to you, Erock. You always come out swinging - every night - regardless of how much you've had to drink.
I despise the government sticking it's head in anywhere but if they are going to do any sort of reform in the medical or insurance field, they have to attack the core of the cost. It's laughable that they will throw the insurance companies under the bus but fail to go after those who cause the insurance companies to do what they do. Just goes to prove that if you donate enough money and lobby hard enough, you can walk scott free.
Nope the Feds could block federal suites or make suites against hospitals and Doctors a federal court issue. Thus tossing out the states altogather.
tort reform needs 1) no new government agency to do this and as the 2) the Courts fall under the jurisdiction of the government I don't have an issue. Sorry but check and mate. Plus I don't hate everything just the USPS which is running a 7 billion dollar debt and o umm the White House and some of Congres.... just to name a few areas of government. I could go on. But u get the picture.
The federal government will need to use it's emminent domain status over the 50 states, but I agree with it.
Gotcha FNG. Misunderstood your intent. I agree. No health care reform, insurance reform or whatever they are calling it today can work without tort reform first.
Yup
While their can be suites for gross incompatence or other things even then it should be limited for exactly the reason's Smashey has stated. It drives up the over all cost of healthcare.
Smashey, don't get me wrong - I'm being facetious. I totally support tort reform and what you've laid out ion your blog - I'm in total agreement. I just thought, ideologically, for a guy like Erock, who hates EVERYTHING that has to do with the government would support Tort Reform while passionately oppose health reform. Both ideas involve the federal government setting all the rules.
No FNG your not even in the same ballpark. Matter of fact, your not even playing the same sport. Where it need to be regulated is frivolous lawsuits. If a Dr. cuts off the wrong foot, you should be able to sue him for millions. When you are informed that there is a certain risk involved with a procedure and choose to have it anyway, the Dr. should not be held liable for that. Although many of these lawsuits get defeated, the Dr's still have to defend themselves through malpractice insurance. That is a big part of the high cost of not only insurance but at the dr's office. The reason it's not in the bill is exactly as erock states. Trial lawyer lobby that is in the dems pocket.
I know. Erock. I know....
And that they donate to which party o right Dems. Plus even if tort reform was part of this bill I still wouldn't support it.
But do we really want the federal government to come in and control state and private law? Wouldn't that be socialism? Anti-states rights? What? The GOVERNMENT is gonna step in and say how much money lawyers can make??? Why, that's ludicrous!!!
Two words FNG - Trial lawyers.
Excellent blog, Smashey! I don't understand why they don't do it as part of the health reform bill?
My blog and this blog are not the same. sorry my blog dated today is a new issue. not tort reform. Take your beef up with Palin. lol
I already stole it erock as I posted this blog originally on 8/3. You and Sara are 3 weeks behind. Get with the program! LOL.
and clearly u are trying to steal my thunder of highlighting the Dems about to try and investigate insurance companies lol
I thought i'd bump this as Sara Palin is trying to steal my thunder.
That's true. So, it goes somewhere where it shouldn't even go in the first place.
That maybe but lawyers and hospitals most of the time settle out of court and it still requires that they care a massive insurance policy.
Dang well written. Although, I have to add, it will be hard to file a lawsuit on a doctor, even if they are guilty. The reason being, "they are trying to help, and it may have been an accident." I heard it somewhere the other night, but apparently, it's hard for a doctor to be proven guilty.
solid blog!
|
<< Home